Fall 08
The contents of this report are generated by students, and do not reflect the opinions of California Polytechnic State University, its administration, or faculty.
Dreaming the Salinas
Towards a Comprehensive River System Management Strategy
A Collabora ve Effort by NR 408 Spring 2011, Natural Resources Management Department, California Polytechnic State University
NR 408 Jencks Table of Contents
PART I: INTRODUCTION ...... 5 VISION STATEMENT FOR SALINAS RIVER ...... 5 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 5
PART II: KEY STAKEHOLDERS ...... 5 II.1: AGRICULTURE ...... 5 STAKEHOLDERS ...... 5 TYPES OF AGRICULTURE...... 5 AGRICULTURE AND CHEMICALS: REGULATIONS AND EFFECTS ...... 6 DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION SURFACE WATER REGULATIONS .....7 DRIFT: ...... 7 RUNOFF MANAGEMENT APPLIES TO STORM WATER AND IRRIGATION WATER RUNOFF: ...... 7 DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION AIR QUALITY MONITORING ...... 8 AGRICULTURAL WATER USE ...... 9 ON FARM WATER CONSERVATION METHODS ...... 9 IRRIGATION DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ...... 10 VI.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH...... 14 1.0 INFORMATION/PUBLICATIONS ...... 14 2.0 EVENTS ...... 15 3.0 TRAINING/VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES...... 16 4.0 EDUCATION...... 17 4.0 OTHERS ...... 17
VI.3 GRANTS ...... 18
APPENDICES ...... 19 THE SALINAS RIVER CHANNEL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM: INITIAL STUDY WITH MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, PUBLIC DRAFT 2009 ...... 20 INTRODUCTION ...... 23 AESTHETICS ...... 23 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES ...... 25 AIR QUALITY ...... 26 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 28 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 30 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 31 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 32 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 33 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 34 LAND USE AND PLANNING ...... 36 MINERAL RESOURCES ...... 37 NOISE ...... 37 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...... 38 PUBLIC SERVICES ...... 38 RECREATION ...... 39 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ...... 39 UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...... 40 CONCLUSION ...... 40 NORTH SLO COUNTY MAP...... 42 II.2: MUNICIPAL WATER COMPANIES ...... 43 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 43 2.0 STAKES AND INTEREST: INDIVIDUAL CITIES ...... 43 2.1 MONTEREY COUNTY ...... 43 2.1.1 SALINAS ...... 43 2.2.2 KING CITY ...... 44 2.2.3 MONTEREY ...... 44 2.2.4 GREENFIELD ...... 44 2.2.5 SOLEDAD ...... 45 2.3 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY...... 45 2.3.1 CAMP ROBERTS ...... 45 2.3.2 PASO ROBLES ...... 45 2.3.3 ATASCADERO ...... 46 2.3.4 SAN LUIS OBISPO ...... 46 3.0 CONCLUSION ...... 47 4.0 REFERENCES...... 48 II.3 AGGREGATE COMPANIES...... 49 II.4 PUBLIC ...... 49 II.5 CULTURAL GROUPS ...... 49 II.6 STEELHEAD FISHERIES ...... 49 1.0 BACKGROUND ON STEELHEAD FISHERIES ...... 49 2.0 THREATS TO THE SALINAS RIVER FISHERIES ...... 50 3.0 OTHER SPECIES PRESENT ...... 51 4.0 COURT CASES REGARDING SALINAS RIVER FISHERIES ...... 51 5.0 CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ...... 52 II.7 MONTEREY BAY ...... 56 1.0 NITRATES IN SALINAS RIVER WATERSHED ...... 56 2.0 PESTICIDES IN SALINAS RIVER WATERSHED ...... 56 3.0 LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE MONTEREY BAY AREA ...... 57 4.0 VISION STATEMENTS FOR NITRATES AND PESTICIDES IN MONTEREY BAY ...... 58
PART III: WATER BUDGET ...... 62 III.1 HEADWATERS ...... 62 III.2 TRIBUTARIES ...... 62 III.3 APPROPRIATORS ...... 62 III.4 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION ...... 62 III.5 MANDATORY DAM RELEASES ...... 62 III.6 CLIMATE ...... 62 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 62 2.0 CLIMATE OF THE SALINAS RIVER HEADWATERS: ...... 63 3.0 THE CLIMATE OF THE PASO ROBLES ...... 63 4.0 CLIMATE OF SALINAS CALIFORNIA...... 64 5.0 CLIMATE OF MONTEREY BAY AREA ...... 65 6.0 CONCLUSIONS...... 65
PART IV: EXISTING MANAGEMENT PLANS IN THE SALINAS WATERSHED ...... 67 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 67 2.0 SALINAS RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN ...... 67 3.0 UPPER SALINAS RIVER WATERSHED ACTION PLAN ...... 68 4.0 SALINAS VALLEY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONALITY EQUIVALENT PLAN ...... 69 5.0 SALINAS RIVER PARKWAY CONSERVATION PLAN ...... 70 6.0 CONCLUSION ...... 71
PART V: KEY ISSUES ...... 73 V.1 ASSESSMENT OF HEADWATERS ...... 73 1.0 DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION: ...... 73 2.0 BACKGROUND AND SETTING: ...... 73 3.0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: ...... 75 4.0 ISSUES AND CONCERNS: ...... 76 V.2 CURRENT WATER QUALITY ...... 76 V.3 LAKE NACIMIENTO ...... 76 V.4 SANTA MARGARITA LAKE ...... 76 1.0 HISTORY ...... 76 2.0 WATER QUALITY FROM THE LAKE ...... 78 3.0 SPECIES AND HEALTH ...... 78 4.0 FLOW RELEASED INTO THE SALINAS RIVER ...... 78 5.0 RECREATION ...... 79 5.0.A ISSUES...... 79 5.0.B CONCERNS ...... 80 V.5 PUBLIC EASEMENTS ON THE SALINAS ...... 82 V.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 82 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 82 2.0 THE CULTURAL HISTORY OF THE SALINAS RIVER ...... 82 3.0 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL LAND USES ...... 83 4.0 AREAS OF ARCHEOLOGICAL INTEREST AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 83 V.7 GROUNDWATER ORDINANCES IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY...... 87 V.8 GROUNDWATER ORDINANCES IN MONTEREY COUNTY ...... 87 V.9 AGRICULTURE ...... 87 V.10 AGGREGATE REMOVAL ...... 87 V.11 LOW STREAM FLOW ON THE SALINAS ...... 87 V.12 CLIMATE CHANGE ...... 87
PART VI: IMPLEMENTATION ...... 88 VI.1 COORDINATION WITH SAN LUIS OBISPO AND MONTEREY COUNTIES ...... 88 Part I: Introduction
Vision Statement for Salinas River Problem Statement
Part II: Key Stakeholders
II.1: Agriculture
Stakeholders It is difficult to find every single company or person who owns or operates agricultural operations within the Salinas River watershed. Every person or corporation who operates within the watershed is a stakeholder. They are stakeholders in the current and future conditions of every tributary and stream within the Salinas River watershed.
Multiple Agricultural Stakeholders include: CA Farm Bureau Federation, County Farm Bureaus, Coalition, Grower-Shipper Association, Strawberry Commission, Central Coast Vineyard Team, and other Agricultural Industry Representatives
Types of Agriculture Agriculture is the primary land use within the entire Salinas River watershed. Grazing and pasture lands and dryland farming have historically been the dominant land use in the upper watershed, but large areas in southern Monterey County and northern San Luis Obispo County are being converted to vineyards. Irrigated cropland is predominant in the lower watershed, primarily row crops such as lettuce, celery, broccoli, and cauliflower on the valley floor, with grazing and vineyards on the upland areas. The lower watershed is one of the most productive-agricultural areas in the world, with a gross annual value of nearly $3.8 billion. The rapidly expanding wine-producing region in the upper watershed around Paso Robles is also becoming a highly productive agricultural area. “Salinas watershed management report”
The Salinas Valley is the center for Monterey County’s 3.8 billion-dollar agriculture industry. Due to its temperate, Mediterranean- like climate and fertile soils, the county has become the number one vegetable-producing region in the nation. The area supplies 80 percent of the nation’s lettuces and nearly the same percentages of artichokes. Broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, strawberries, peppers, squash, carrots, asparagus, celery, tomatoes, mushrooms, brussel sprouts, garlic, onions and flowers are also grown in abundance. In addition, Monterey County has become one of the largest premium grape growing regions in California, with over 40,000 acres of wine grapes. The industry finds strength in diverse variety. Organic produce is an expanding market and had been incorporated into the holdings of most large companies. There are currently over 14,000 acres of organic vegetables grown in Monterey County (Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce).
The leading agriculture crops for the county of San Luis Obispo include wine grapes, strawberries, and broccoli. There is a total of 1,164,500 acres of agriculture land, with 1,137,686 acres being harvested.
AGRICULTURE: WHERE IS IT AND WHAT KIND OF PRACTICES AND ACTIVITIES OCCUR?
Crop production is allowed anywhere within the unincorporated boundaries of San Luis Obispo County. Grazing is an allowed use everywhere except within urban and village reserve areas. Certain types of animal keeping requires permits, while the keeping of bees must meet the County apiary ordinance and state law. Nursery operations are allowed on in certain land use categories such as Agriculture and Rural Lands, while greenhouses require land use permits based upon their size. Agricultural processing requires a permit and may be limited to appropriate locations. Cities may have their own rules and regulations.
Cultivation and tillage of the soil; the planting, growing, harvesting and storage of agricultural commodities including associated pest prevention (including pesticide use) and crop nutrition (fertilizer, manure and compost use); the storage and disposal of manure; composting; the keeping and pollination services of bees; any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incidental to those farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or market, or delivery to carriers for transportation to market.
Noise, dust, light, odors, fumes, and insects; operation of machinery, pumps and fans; night time lighting and harvesting operations; farm personnel, truck traffic, and slow- moving equipment; the storage, warehousing and processing of agricultural products or other inconveniences or discomforts associated with agricultural activities at any point day or night, any day of the week, 365 days a year are all activities commonly conducted for agricultural purposes (San Luis Obispo County Right to Farm Information).
Agriculture and Chemicals: Regula ons and Effects
NITRATE GROUND WATER STUDY IN DEVELOPMENT Senate Bill 2X1 (SB 2X1), section 83002.5, requires the State Water Board, in consultation with other agencies, to develop pilot projects in the Tulare Lake Basin and the Salinas Valley that focus on nitrate contamination. The work will be conducted by University California, Davis and the objectives of the study are to: • Identify source(s) of nitrate contamination in groundwater
• Estimate proportionate nitrate contributions to groundwater by source and category of discharger
• Identify and analyze options for reducing and preventing nitrate contamination of groundwater
• Identify costs associated with the identified options for reducing and preventing nitrate contamination of groundwater (Nitrate Project).
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION SURFACE WATER REGULATIONS The California Department of Pesticide Regulation is currently developing new regulations to prevent pesticide contamination in surface water. Two components of the draft conceptual surface water regulations are related to production agriculture: Drift and Runoff Management. Below is a summary of the proposed regulations.
Drift: • Ground applications: shall not be made within 25 feet of any sensitive aquatic site • Airblast, high pressure (≥60 psi) wand or high-pressure hand gun applications shall not be made within 100 feet of sensitive aquatic site • Aerial applications not within 150 feet of sensitive aquatic site
Runoff Management applies to storm water and irrigation water runoff: • No application if soil moisture is at field capacity and a storm is forecasted within 48 hrs of application, or a storm likely to produce runoff is likely to occur within 48 hrs (unclear). • Or, apply only if application is followed by technology or product that degrades the pesticide (Landguard, etc.). OR.
• Rain: Divert or contain any runoff for 72 hours before releasing into a sensitive aquatic site.
• Irrigation: for 4 weeks after application, divert or hold any irrigation runoff for 72 hours from the time runoff would start before releasing into a sensitive aquatic site (Surface Water Regulatory Issues). DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION AIR QUALITY MONITORING DPR is establishing a network to sample ambient air for multiple pesticides in several communities. The program includes a regular monitoring schedule, over 5 plus years, beginning in 2010.Sites proposed include Ripon (S of Stockton), Shafter (NW Bakersfield), and Salinas
The data will be used to evaluate risk assessment, risk management and to determine effectiveness of regulatory programs. It will also be used to enable DPR to make more accurate estimates of long-term exposure and resulting risk the health risk and as necessary improve protective measures against pesticide exposure.
If and when DPR implements voluntary or regulatory restrictions, the air network will provide evidence of the effectiveness of the restrictions. For example, use limitations (township caps) for 1,3-dichloropropene and methyl bromide are based on achieving certain target concentrations. The air network will provide data to determine if the target concentrations are met. Similarly, the air monitoring network will provide data to determine trends over time within the monitored communities. If DPR can relate pesticide use levels to detected concentrations, the effect of application method changes or other restrictions on air concentrations can be estimated (Environmental Affairs).
EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES CASE STUDY
In 2000 and 2001 over 18 months water chemistry tests were conducted in an ephemeral stream in the Gabilan Range on the eastern border of the Salinas Valley. The stream carries some natural water flow during the wettest winter months, and headwater flows go underground above the study area. Flow in the lower portion of the creek is dominated by agricultural drainwater.
Toxicity test results over 18 months in 200 and 2001 were compared to physical and water quality analyses, as well as selected pesticide measures in both water and sediment matrices. Ecological impacts were assessed by characterizing macroinvertebrate community structure upstream and downstream of the drain water inputs.
Toxicity in the river varies seasonally and spatially. Water tests found the organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon. The only trace organic compounds detected in river water were DDE, dieldrin, and two herbicide, diuron and fenuron. As with previous studies, this study demonstrates that toxic concentrations of pesticides in drain waters are entering the Salinas River. Results of the study suggest that toxic concentrations of pesticides are entering the river, and that agricultural drain water inputs are impacting the macroinvertebrate community of the system. Drain water may be interacting with other factors such as habitat and turbidity to affect the river ecosystem (Anderson et al, 2004). Agricultural Water Use Under Assembly Bill 3616, the Agricultural Efficient Water Management Act of 1990, Water Code Section 10900-10904; the objective of the Agricultural Water Management Planning & Implementation Program is to provide technical, financial and administrative assistance to the Agricultural Water Management Council and to assist water districts throughout the State develop Agricultural Water Management Plans and implement cost-effective Efficient Water Management Practices (EWMPs) (Water Use Efficiency).
California produces over 250 different crops and leads the nation in production of 75 commodities. California is the sole producer of 12 different commodities including almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, raisins, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes and walnuts. Most of this production would not be possible without irrigation. In average year California agriculture irrigates 9.6 million acres using roughly 34 million acre-feet of water of the 43 million acre-feet diverted from surface waters or pumped from groundwater.
California's population growth and greater awareness of environmental water requirements has increased the pressure on California agriculture to use water more efficiently and to make more water available for urban and environmental uses. Decreasing agricultural water use is difficult for several reasons. First, California agricultural water use when considered on a broad regional scale, for the most part, is very efficient. Individual fields and farms in some regions may have low efficiencies, but water that is not used on one farm or field is often used on a nearby farm or field. Secondly, for most crops, production and yield is directly related to crop water use. A decrease in applied water will often directly decrease yield. The key is management strategies that improve water use efficiency without decreasing yield.
There are technologies and management strategies available that conserve water while maintaining yield and production standards. These technologies and management strategies like improved irrigation scheduling and crop specific irrigation management often not only conserve water, but also save energy and decrease grower's costs.
Below is a list of commonly used agricultural water conservation methods for both on- farm and district level implementation.
ON FARM WATER CONSERVATION METHODS Irrigation Scheduling
Deciding when and how much water to apply to a field has a significant impact on the total amount of water used by the crop water use efficiency and irrigation efficiency. A number of different scheduling systems have been developed that can use either soil- plant or atmosphere-based measurements to determine when to irrigate. Using a more scientific approach to scheduling has generally been shown to decrease the amount of water applied while improving yield. Tailwater Return Systems
To provide adequate water to the low end of the field, surface irrigation requires that a certain amount of water be spilled or drained off as tailwater. Tailwater return systems catch this runoff and pump the water back to the top of the field for reuse.
Irrigation System Improvements
Irrigation system improvement involves modifying the irrigation method or use of hardware and software to properly apply water to the field while minimizing water losses. For example improved furrows, combination of furrow and sprinkler, and changing from surface irrigation (flood, furrow and border check) to pressurized systems. Changing from surface irrigation to pressurized systems (sprinkler, drip, microirrigation) generally increases irrigation distribution uniformity and decreases applied water, although with certain soil types and applications, surface irrigation can be very efficient. In California there has been a trend to shift from surface irrigation to pressurized systems.
IRRIGATION DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Canal Lining
Lining canals with high seepage rates can result in significant water savings. This is especially important where the groundwater is saline and the water cannot be reused without desalination.
Canal Structure Improvements
Replacing or improving canal structures can improve an irrigation district's ability to manage and control water in the district and reducing spillage.
Remote Monitoring and Control
Many irrigation districts are installing remote monitoring and in some cases remote control systems such as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Systems (SCADA). Remote control systems allow district to measure flow or water depth and allows the district to remotely operate hydraulic structures or devices. Remote monitoring and control systems allow districts to improve water management and control (Water Use Efficiency).
The following excerpts from the “Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements For Discharge From Irrigated Lands” are offered to serve as background information concerning the regulation of irrigation discharge in California.
EXCERPTED FROM: CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD; CENTRAL COAST REGION; DRAFT; ORDER NO. R3-2011-0006; CONDITIONAL WAIVER OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGES FROM IRRIGATED LANDS
In the 2004 Agricultural Order, the Central Coast Water Board found that the discharge of waste from irrigated lands has impaired and polluted the waters of the State and of the United States within the Central Coast Region, has impaired the beneficial uses, and has caused nuisance. The 2004Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again for an additional eight months until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). This updated Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), revises the 2004 Agricultural Order as set forth herein.
EXCERPTED FROM: APPENDIX A; Staff Recommendations for Agricultural Order; ORDER NO. R3-2011-0006;CONDITIONAL WAIVER OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGES FROM IRRIGATED LANDS
According to California Water Code Section 13263(g), the discharge of waste to waters of the State is a privilege, not a right. The Central Coast Water Board is the principal state agency in the Central Coast Region with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. (Cal. Wat. Code § 13001, Legislative Intent). Water Code section 13260(a) requires that any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, shall file with the appropriate Regional Board a report of waste discharge (ROWD) containing such information and data as may be required by the Central Coast Water Board, unless the Central Coast Water Board waives such requirement. Water Code section 13263 requires the Central Coast Water Board to prescribe waste discharge requirements (WDRs), or waive WDRs, for the discharge. The WDRs must implement relevant water quality control plans and the Water Code. Water Code section 13269(a) provides that the Central Coast Water Board may waive the requirement to obtain WDRs for a specific discharge or specific type of discharge, if the Central Coast Water Board determines that the waiver is consistent with any applicable water quality control plan and such waiver is in the public interest, provided that any such waiver of WDRs is conditional, includes monitoring conditions unless waived, does not exceed five years in duration, and may be terminated at any time by the Central Coast Water Board.
The Central Coast Water Board recognizes that Dischargers may not achieve immediate compliance with all requirements. Thus, this Order provides reasonable schedules for Dischargers to reach full compliance over many years by implementing management practices and monitoring and reporting programs that demonstrate and verify measurable progress annually. Dischargers must submit monitoring reports in compliance with MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer. Dischargers must submit technical reports that the Executive Officer may require to determine compliance with this Order as authorized by Water Code section 13267, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer.
Works Cited Anderson, B. S., J. W. Hunt, B. M. Phillips, P. A. Nicely, V. De Vlaming, V. Connor, N. Richard, and R. S. Tjeerdema. "Integrated Assessment of the Impacts of Agricultural Drainwater in the Salinas River (California, USA)." Environmental Pollution 124 (2004): 523-32. Print. "Environmental Affairs: Monterey Co. Office of the Agricultural Commissioner." Monterey Co. Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. Web. 01 June 2011.
1.0 Informa on/Publica ons 1. “Dreaming the Salinas”- A short documentary:
Production of a short documentary explaining the history, restoration efforts, beneficial uses, and importance of the Salinas River will aid in garnering interest and support for the Dreaming the Salinas project. Professionals and experts from the public and private sectors will be interviewed about why the stewardship of the Salinas River is important economically and environmentally. The documentary will be shown at local schools during assemblies, during public events, and public water related workshops as a brief introduction to the project and overview of the Dreaming the Salinas goals. If funds are available, free copies of the documentary will be distributed to the public.
2. Informative Booths:
A volunteer Dreaming the Salinas booth will be set up at the San Luis Obispo Farmers Market as well as other local markets within the county to gain more public support and increase recruitment. Informational fliers and posters on the project will be displayed for public notice. Additionally, the Dreaming the Salinas mascot, Tommy the Southwestern pond turtle will be present at the market to actively gain children interest. Volunteers will run the booth and actively inform the public on the project.
3. E-mail Updates:
At every Dreaming the Salinas event an e-mail or contact list should be distributed for those interested in receiving bi-monthly e-mails on Dreaming the Salinas project updates, involvement opportunities, open forums, etc. It is important that the public has access to up-to-date information on the Dreaming the Salinas project and feels involved in the process of making it a success.
4. Publication:
To increase the scope of public interest and knowledge of the Dreaming the Salinas project, a publication can be created on the project details and updates. A small flyer or summary publication can be created in the preliminary stages of the project to be mass distributed to residences throughout the county to increase public knowledge of the project. Thereafter, this document can be dispersed every other month to individuals who are on the contact list. If an entire report is not within the project budget or time frame, then the Dreaming the Salinas project should seek sections of the local newspapers distributed throughout the county to post community involvement opportunities and other facts about the project. 2.0 Events 1. Annual Creek Clean-Up Day:
Every year San Luis Obispo County holds the county wide event known as Creek Day. It is a day where volunteers from all around the County clean up their local creeks and streams in an effort to promote environmental awareness and stewardship of their respective waterways. Incorporating Dreaming the Salinas into this annual County wide event will promote awareness and stewardship for the Salinas River and its tributaries. Dreaming the Salinas volunteers will head clean-up crews that will go out on Creek Day to clean it of trash and human debris. While out in the field our volunteers will interactively teach the public about the river and it’s importance to the local community. This will provide a excellent opportunity for networking with the public and presenting our vision of the river while simultaneously cleaning it up.
2. Water Quality 3‐Day Short Course:
A curriculum for water quality and how it relates to the health of the Salinas River could be developed for educational purposes. City officials, government members, contractors, developers, local businesses, and interested citizens would be invited to attend. Curriculum would educate attendees about proper water quality, mitigation measures, and other water quality related themes. Professionals from the private and public sector will be invited to speak and present their material in an interactive manner including outside and classroom instruction.
3. Festival of the Arts:
Paso Robles’ Festival of the Arts provides a window to help support the Dreaming the Salinas project and increase the public awareness. Collaborating with the City of Paso Robles and becoming part of this festival will help increase overall environmental awareness of the Salinas River--benefiting both the Dreaming the Salinas project and the city of Paso Robles efforts in watershed management. The linking of these two projects will create a larger outreach force. At the festival, the vision of the Dreaming the Salinas project will be highlighted through pamphlets, the Dreaming the Salinas Video, various “Do you know the Salinas?” questionnaires, Tommy the turtle mascot, as well as other promotional activities. With the incorporation of arts and craft activities the public can conceptualize the future of the river and feel more connected to the project. All Dreaming the Salinas participants should be encouraged to attend to promote the project. Thus, the public can feel empowered and inspired to get involved in the rivers future.
4. Wine Festival:
Incorporating The Wine Festival into Dreaming the Salinas Project will provide support and knowledge about the project. The aim of the Festival will be to educate the public about the inherent values of the Salinas River via a collective interest in wine and gathering event. Information can be distributed at the event on the Dreaming the Salinas project through brochures, billboards, and T shirts. This will be beneficial not only for the Wine Companies involved, as a positive charitable image, but also for the Dreaming the Salinas Project. The Wine Festival will undoubtedly bring a large crowd which could also encourage donations to the foundation. The foundation could also ask local businesses for item donations, which can be sold in a silent auction that will raise money for the foundation.
5. Run the River:
Another outreach program that can be facilitated through the Dreaming the Salinas project is a spring 5k walk/run and 10k run. This event will take place directly next to the Salinas River, where participants will enjoy the scenic beauty of the river and environment as they run or walk on the trails created through the Dreaming the Salinas project. The Run the River event will increase public knowledge and support of the project and also generate some funds for the project. At the event information on the Dreaming the Salinas project will be available, as well as training and volunteer opportunities. Information on this event will be posted on the Dreaming the Salinas website, posters and fliers can be distributed throughout the county to increase participation.
3.0 Training/Volunteer Opportuni es 1. Volunteer Recruitment & Training:
To increase public knowledge of the Dreaming the Salinas project and gain more public support, a variety of measures will be implemented. A volunteer recruitment and public outreach department of the Dreaming the Salinas will be in charge of the organization and coordination of community involvement. Personnel in this department will distribute various informational public fliers and publications on the project throughout San Luis Obispo County pertaining to volunteer work days monthly. All ages should be incorporated into the Dreaming the Salinas projects. The various recreational sites throughout the county (i.e. public trails, lakes, public parks) should be targeted as well as the schools throughout the county. A two hour training session giving the baseline overview of skills and duties that will be performed on the projects will be provided twice a month via qualified personnel. Once this training session is completed, an individual is qualified to voluntary on any working project along the Salinas. The volunteer projects will include: ongoing removal of non‐native vegetation, planting, trail maintenance and upkeep, and a Water Quality 3-day short course. Further information on the training information will be available on the Dreaming the Salinas website.
2. Volunteers:
The Dreaming the Salinas project will attempt to utilize several organizations for volunteer labor. The organizations that the foundation will try collaborate with are as follows: Grizzly Academy, Local Schools, Boy/Girl Scouts of America, community resource center, Cal Poly, Cuesta, AEP, EcoSlo, Surfriders Assoc., NRCS, EPA, CCSWRCB, and any other charitable/volunteer/governmental organizations. Through the partnership of these organizations the foundation can hopefully gain the support it needs for projects and outreach to the public. The volunteers will work on a variety of tasks pertaining to the Dreaming the Salinas project.
4.0 Educa on 1. Public Education:
We can measure the success of the outreach program by measuring the amount of progress made by volunteers that were gained through educational opportunities and volunteer positions. The Dreaming the Salinas project will develop a public training plan that will allow for the collaboration of local schools, volunteers, and developers/ contractors. As the first step of this training plan, an introduction to the project will being with a community open house forum will provide a means for the public to learn about the project, ask questions, and give input. These open forums should be encouraged throughout the communities where the Dreaming the Salinas project will take place. The city halls will provide a structured and welcoming setting for the forum. The Dreaming the Salinas project heads should facilitate the forum as well as other personnel directly involved in the creation of the master plan. At the open house the Dreaming the Salinas Documentary can be presented, as well as informational brochures and contact information. See volunteer recruitment and training for more information.
2. Partnering with Local High Schools:
Engaging and educating local teenagers who use and live by the Salinas River is a vital part of establishing a sense of pride and stewardship. Empowering young adults to view the river as symbol of their local area will also help mentor young children, of the Paso Robles/Atascadero area, who look up to these teenagers as role models. Classroom field trips to the river and presentations infused into the school curriculum are many ideas that will serve to educate young adults about the importance of the Salinas River. Also, classroom trips to the river to help in restoration efforts, provides a fun and educational activity to the classroom. An integration of the high school detentions or community service hours can also be incorporated into the project. In addition too class room activities, the Dreaming the Salinas documentary can be shown to students which can stimulate further public knowledge and interest.
4.0 Others 1. Internships:
The Dreaming the Salinas project should offer volunteer internships and welcome young adults to directly work in the project. These active individuals can be a driving force in the project’s future if such an opportunity is available. Cal Poly and Cuesta students should be encouraged to become involved in the project gaining units through senior projects or internships. The job opportunities can range anywhere from natural resource management to community outreach, with anything in between.
2. A Design/Brainstorm Workshop:
A public outreach and community visioning effort for the Dreaming the Salinas Master Plan should be implemented in the preliminary stages of the project. Community members throughout the cities adjacent to the Salinas River should be encouraged to share their thoughts and visions about a revitalized river corridor in a 2-Day Design/ Brainstorm Workshop. This input could be collected and culminated into the final design of the project. Invitations to join the event should be distributed to a wide group of professionals, encouraging them to participate alongside the community members. The following participants/stakeholders should be emphasized to join: Landscape Architect Volunteers (American Society of Landscape Architects/ASLA members and Cal Poly Students); State and Federal Resource and Environmental and/or Regulatory Agencies (including: Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Parks, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Caltrans and the Department of Fish and Game); Property Owners along the River; and Community/Interest Groups (Chamber of Commerce, Amigos de Anza and North County Trails, Archaeologists, Audobon Society, Regional Conservation District, and Trust for Public Land). The workshop will begin with a hike of the Salinas River Corridor and trails to internalize the serene tranquility of the Salinas River and experience first hand the innate value of this natural environment. The participants should be guided by a Dreaming the Salinas project manager to give an overview of the project goals for a baseline of information.
3. Dreaming the Salinas Vision Contest:
To generate some enthusiasm about the project and gain some public insight on their views and values of the Salinas River a Dreaming the Salinas art contest could be generated. All ages should be encouraged to participate in this art contest, where applicants would draw or create a picture, or craft of what they like most about the river or what they would like to see in the river’s future along with a short written explanation of their piece. All of the projects could be collected and the winners selected could be incorporated into the Dreaming the Salinas project logo and master plan. Information about this event could be distributed through schools, churches, or other Dreaming the Salinas events.
VI.3 Grants Appendices Technical Analysis and Amendments:
The Salinas River Channel Maintenance Program: Initial Study with Mitigated Negative Declaration, Public Draft 2009
Background
The Salinas River is the largest water resource in the central coast of California that stretches from San Luis Obispo County to Monterey County, approximately 170 miles in length and draining 4,160 square miles. The overall watershed provides residents with a place of recreation, wildlife with a suitable corridor, and farmers with a potable water source.
The City of Paso Robles is working on restoring, protecting, and enhancing the water quality, riparian habitat, flood control, and groundwater recharge values of the property along the Upper Salinas River. Both land acquisition and restoration were phases of the Upper Salinas River Parkway, protecting approximately fifty acres of key riparian area, increasing native vegetation, decreasing the amount of sedimentation reaching the river, and reducing the urban pollutants found in the river. The overall protection of the Salinas River is key in managing the health of the watershed and tributaries. Vision Statement There are multiple management plans for the Salinas River, ranging from land management, watershed management, and maintenance programs, protecting the intrinsic values of the Salinas. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, in partnership with the City of Paso Robles, have created a Salinas River Parkway Management Plan for the approximate 154 acres of acquired/public conservation and restored land, nearest to the City of Paso Robles. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has generated a Salinas River Watershed Management Action Plan, for increasing the overall water quality of the Salinas River.
The Salinas River Channel Maintenance (SRCM) Program, written by the Monterey County Water Resource Agency, is the guiding document that provides maintenance criteria for the mitigation measures, described in the program plan. The program consists of the analysis of an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration, which combines eighteen key issues, objectives and implementation measures for the program plan. The following documentation provides edited and further analysis of the SRCM Program, for the purpose of managing the water resource, improving the flood protection, and avoiding flood damages.
Introduction The Salinas River Channel Maintenance Program Area is located in Monterey County and includes the tributaries of Gonzales Slough, Bryant Canyon Channel, and San Lorenzo Creek, for a total of approximately 94 river miles. Historically, the land adjacent to the Salinas River and its tributaries has experienced restricted and disastrous floods. To alleviate the flooding potential of the reservoirs, the intentional releasing of water happens and often results in silt transport and sandbar formation along the river. The wet conditions encourage in-channel vegetation growth which, in turn, further increases sediment deposition and mid-channel sandbars. Both in-channel vegetation and sandbars will reduce the overall water transportation capacity of the river. This results in the land being more prone to flooding and, consequently, why channel maintenance is an important aspect to those living along the Salinas River.
For this project, Monterey County is proposing to conduct voluntary channel maintenance activities with landowners and the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. The channel maintenance would be carried out by the owners of property adjacent to the river and those activities would be considered and approved on an annual basis. This annual approval is to ensure the assessment of hydrological conditions which will vary throughout the implementation of the program. Some of the key channel maintenance activities are: non-native vegetation treatment, native vegetation treatment, sediment management, and bank stabilization. To reduce the risk of flooding, the channel maintenance activities would be focused in areas with limited channel capacity. The following areas are aspects of the Maintenance Program that have been determined to contain a threshold significance related to the environmental impacts associated to the program activities. Further analysis is described to show that these thresholds are relative and consistent to the planning and preservation of the entire Salinas River.
Aesthetics A) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Determination: Less than Significant
Analysis: The riverbed is not considered a conspicuous landscape feature because of the flat topography of the valley floor. In addition to that, the riparian vegetation along the river corridor is much more visible than the channel itself and is therefore what the river channel is usually identified as. Roadwork done near the river is blocked by the vegetation so that it is not a visually degrading feature. The only work that would be visible from County roads and the highway would be work that is done directly in the channel. In this case, there still would not be a degradation of the views in entirety. That is why the impacts from the Project on the scenic views would be less than significant.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant” is sufficient and does not require further amendments. B) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historical buildings within a state scenic highway?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: There will not be an impact from the project on the scenic resources since no trees or rock outcroppings would be substantially damaged.
Amendments: After analysis, the determination of “No Impact” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Determination: Less than Significant
Analysis: The channel maintenance activities are expected be able to be seen from the County roads and the state highway, but the natural regeneration process is expected to re-establish the natural stream aesthetics. It is expected that the winter flows and/or upstream reservoir releases will redistribute the in-channel and floodplain sediments as well as help the in stream riparian vegetation to establish. Impacts are expected to be less than significant since the project is predicted to not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site. However, assumptions are made on the climatic conditions of the years following the project. It is assumed that hose years will be typical rainfall years and that the additional water in the channel will contribute to the regeneration of the typical habitat.
Amendments: After analysis, an amendment is proposed to this section to include a mitigation/management plan for what should occur in an abnormal rainfall year. A severe drought of year of floods would impact the rate at which regeneration takes place, so I mitigation strategy should be created in case that occurs.
D) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: All of the channel maintenance activities would occur during the daylight hours, so there would be no new creation of substantial light or glare from this project. No impact would occur. Amendments: After analysis, the determination of “No Impact” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
Agriculture and Forest Resources A) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: The Project site is classified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as “Other Land”. This classification is for non-agricultural or natural vegetation areas. The project does not propose the conversion o f adjacent farmland to non- agricultural use, so there is no impact.
Amendments: After analysis, the determination of “No Impact” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
B) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: There are no lands present under Williamson Act contract and the area is not zoned for agricultural use, so no impact would occur.
Amendments: After analysis, the determination of “No Impact” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 4526)?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: While the project does call for the removal of some Class I, Class II, and Class III vegetation it does not call for the removal of any timber resources. The riparian stream corridor is not designated as forest land and the Project will not require rezoning of the land. Due to that, there should not be any zoning conflicts and no impact will occur.
Amendments: After analysis, the determination of “No Impact” is sufficient and does not require further amendments. D) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: There will be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as a result of the project. No impact will occur.
Amendments: After analysis, the determination of “No Impact” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
E) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: Long-term changes to the environment, such as diverting water from agricultural use to other uses, are not going to result from the project. No impact would occur.
Amendment: After analysis, the determination of “No Impact” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
Air Quality A) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Determination: Less than Significant
Analysis: The use of vehicles and machinery for channel maintenance would result in increased levels of ozone, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide released into the air from exhaust. However, this increase would be temporary and localized to the maintenance site which would not interfere with the implementation of the 2008 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region. This means that the impacts of the Project on air quality would be less than significant.
Amendment: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
B) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Determination: Less than Significant with Mitigation Analysis: Vegetation removal and sandbar grading are examples of channel maintenance activities that generate fugitive dust of which would be particulate matter. This is a pollutant of most concern and fugitive dust emissions could cause substantial increases in concentrations of PM10 which could affect compliance with the regional ambient air quality standards. Channel maintenance activities that disturb more than 2.2 acres are likely to exceed the threshold for PM10s of 82 pounds per day. If channel maintenance should disturb more than 2.2 acres per day, then Mitigation Measures AR-1 and AR-2 will be implemented to minimize these effects.
Amendment: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant with Mitigation” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Determination: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Analysis: The construction that is part of the channel maintenance would increase the amount of ozone and ozone precursors such as nitrous oxide in the air due to exhaust. This could lead to a significant impact since the Project could contribute substantially to the existing air quality violation. The same mitigation measures as mentioned in part B would be in effect to reduce the impacts of construction emissions.
Amendment: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant with Mitigation” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
D) Expose Sensitive Receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Determination: Less than Significant
Analysis: There are no adjacent Sensitive Receptors that would be affected by the fugitive dust or other emissions from the maintenance site. In addition to that, the measures used by the mitigation plan will reduce the amount of fugitive dust produced. For that reason, the impact would be less than significant.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
E) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Determination: Less than Significant
Analysis: Localized odors from the exhaust of diesel vehicles will be produced during the short time between September 1 and October 31. There are no adjacent Sensitive Receptors and the impact would be less than significant.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
Biological Resources A) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Determination: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Analysis: No special-status plant species are found on site, but several special-status animal species are found on site. To cope with those species, take avoidance measures such as Mitigation Measure BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 have been implemented. These mitigation measures will ensure the safety of those animals and the impact should be less than significant.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant with Mitigation” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
B) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Determination: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Analysis: The vegetation near the stream and riparian corridor may be directly modified as a result of the Project. Protocol from the Maintenance Program consists of native vegetation maintenance, non-native vegetation maintenance, and sandbar grading components. In effort to minimize damage to the riparian vegetation, existing roads will be used whenever possible. Whenever new roads need to be constructed, any trees that are removed that have a dbh of three inches or more will be mitigated for by a planting of a native riparian plant. With the mitigation measures in place, the effects will be less than significant.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant with Mitigation” is sufficient and does not require further amendments. C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Determination: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Analysis: Stream and riparian habitat may be directly modified as a result of the Project. The river is regulated under the Clean Air Act, however, impact to the water would be less than significant with the mitigation measures in place.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant with Mitigation” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
D) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Determination: Less than Significant with Mitigation
Analysis: The Salinas River in Monterey County is used as a migration corridor for the Steelhead Trout. Channel maintenance work would not take place during the migration period. However, the maintenance to the channel could alter the low-flow channel to a point that migration would be effected the following year. The work could also possibly result in impassable barriers in low flow conditions. A reduction in habitat space for the Steelhead could also occur. However, consideration to the sedimentation caused by bank erosion needs to be assessed. Results would be less than significant.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant with Mitigation” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
E) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinances?
Determination: Less than Significant
Analysis: None of the trees removed during the project will be “heritage trees” pursuant to the regulations for the Preservation of Oak and Other Protected Trees of the Monterey County Zoning Ordinance. The removal of the trees will not be significant due to the small area of potential impact.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “Less than Significant” is sufficient and does not require further amendments. F) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habit conservation plan?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: The project site is not covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact will occur.
Amendments: After analysis, the impact determination of “No Impact” is sufficient and does not require further amendments.
Cultural Resources A) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource?
Determination: Less than significant
Analysis: Out of the 50+ cultural resource surveys that have been conducted in the area, there have been six cultural resource sites recorded within the project area. Since all but one of these sites is outside the 500- foot corridor within the project area. The site that was discovered inside the project area was recorded in an area that has already been “disturbed.” These discoveries indicate that the project would not likely cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historical resource. However, there is a small chance that there could be a discovery of new, unknown resources. Therefore, there correct determination has been made to establish a mitigation measure to protect any new cultural resources that may be encountered.
B) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource?
Determination: Less than significant with mitigation
Analysis: During the project, the potential for unidentified buried resources to be found does exist, but is highly unlikely because the project area composes only river banks and channels. It has been determined that the project area does not contain any know archeological resources. Although unlikely, any discovery of new archeological resources will be protected by Mitigation Measure CR-1. This mitigation will ensure than in any new discovery, the impact will be less than significant. C) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Determination: Less than significant
Analysis: There is almost no doubt that the impact will be less than significant. This is due to the fact that there are no known fossil sites within the project area, the absence of any unique geological resources, and the low paleontological sensitivity of the area.
D) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Determination: Less than significant with mitigation
Analysis: The correct determination has most likely been made because the site records search and survey showed no evidence that the construction site contains human remains. Also, the area has already been disturbed in the past. However, Mitigation Measure CR-2 is an integral part of the project plan in the event any human remains are discovered during channel maintenance. The Mitigation Measure will ensure that impacts would be less than significant to any discovery of human remains.
Geology and Soils A) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides?
Determination: Less than significant
Analysis: The determination of “less than significant” is valid because of the nature of the land in the project zone. The mainstream Salinas River is composed mostly of clay, gravel, sand, and silt sediments which would not expose people or structures to any of these potential adverse effects. No mitigation is necessary.
B) Would the project result in loss of topsoil or substantial soil erosion
Determination: Less than significant
Analysis: Since high erosion rates within the Salinas River are a natural process anyways, erosion is not of high concern with this project. Erosion of stream banks in the Salinas is likely for this project, but it is still correct to say that the extra erosion created by the project will be a small fraction of the suspended sediment load in the grand scheme of things. Therefore, no mitigation measures will be necessary for this. C) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Determination: Less than significant
Analysis: This is also not an area of high concern for this project, as the project area in not located in an area that is prone to landslides or subsidence. It is highly likely that the impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
D) Would the project be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Determination: Less than significant
Analysis: This concern would no doubt be less than significant, as the on-site soils have a low to moderate expansion potential. No mitigation necessary.
Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Determination: No impact
Analysis: There would be no impact because the project will not involve the use of alternative waste water disposal systems. No mitigation necessary.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions A) Would the project Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance?
Determination: Less than significant with mitigation.
Analysis: The correct determination has been mad that with mitigation, the impacts would be less than significant. Since Mitigation Measure AIR-2 requires the use of emulsified diesel fuel in existing engines and to use gasoline powered equipment over diesel powered equipment, greenhouse gas emissions associated with diesel fuel would be reduced significantly. Because of the reduction of these emissions, the impact, with the mitigation measure, would be less than significant. B) Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses?
Determination: Less than significant.
Analysis: The project would not result in increased greenhouse gas emissions over the existing conditions. There is no doubt that the project would not conflict with the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required, and the impact would be less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials A) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Determination: No impact.
Analysis: Since the project would not involve any routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, no impact would occur.
B) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Determination: Less than significant.
Analysis: Since there is a chance that the use of hazardous materials could result in accidental release of the material, staging activities and refueling would be conducted outside of the river/stream channel. These measures alone would prevent any release into the Salinas River. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
C) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Determination: No impact.
Analysis: No impact would occur because the project site is not located within one quarter mile of a school. D) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, and as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Determination: No impact.
Analysis: The project site is not included on any lists of hazardous materials sites. Therefore, no impact would occur.
E) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Determination: No impact.
Analysis: Since the Project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of a public airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip, no impact would occur.
G) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Determination: No impact
Analysis: The correct determination has been made that there would be no impact because of the proposed time from of the project (Sept. 1st through Oct. 31st).
H) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Determination: Less than significant.
Analysis: By using properly maintained equipment and avoiding smoking while conducting the channel maintenance activities, the impacts would be able to be reduced to being less than significance.
Hydrology and Water Quality A) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Determination: Less than significant. Analysis: The determination of “less than significant” is correct because of the fact that: within the Salinas River, turbidity and erosion have always been a natural stream process. The additional erosion and suspended sediment will constitute a very small fraction of the suspended sediment load flowing down river. Also, the staging activities and refueling will occur outside of the river channel to avoid releases into the river. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable water quality standards, so the impacts would be less than significant.
B) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Determination: No Impact
C) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Determination: Less than significant
Analysis: The project would not substantially alter flows in a manner that would increase siltation, flooding, or erosion. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
E) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: Because the project would not create runoff water which would exceed the capacity or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, no impact would occur.
F) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Determination: Less than significant. Analysis: As stated previously, the small incremental increase in sediment loading caused by the project over the next 5 years would amount to a very small fraction of the suspended sediment load. Impacts would no doubt be less than significant.
G) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Determination: No Impact.
Analysis: Since the project is not going to place any housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, no impacts due to flooding would occur.
I) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Determination: No Impact.
Analysis: As stated in the project plan, “The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of failure of a levee or dam.” Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Land Use and Planning A) Physically divide an established community?
B) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact or No Impact
Analysis: The Project would not significantly interfere with any current land use and planning. It would not interfere with an established community because the Project site is not located in an established community. It would have no long term changes in activities/existing uses, though construction could cause temporary noise and dust disruption. Mitigation measures would be taken to reduce any significant effects from noise and dust. The Project would not conflict with any current habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan because there are none that apply to the Project area. Amendments: No amendments are required due to the lack of conflict with current land use and planning.
Mineral Resources A) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
B) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: The Project would not significantly interfere with any existing mineral resources. There are no existing mineral resources at the Project site according to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act which requires the designation of Mineral Resources Zones. Since there are no mineral resources in the area, they would not be affected so no locally important mineral resource could be lost.
Amendments: All measures stated above are adequate, there are no mineral resources facing the threat of exploitation.
Noise
A) Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B) Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
C) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
D) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
E) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
F) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Determination: Less Than Significant Impact or No Impact
Analysis: There would be an increase in noise levels during the channel maintenance period from September 1st to October 31st over the next five years. However these noise levels would be intermittent throughout the day and have no significant impact on sensitive land uses nearby. After completion, the noise levels would return to existing conditions as the Project would have no impact on noise levels. Currently the existing noise stems primarily from the traffic along Highway 101. There will be a temporary increase in noise level from September 1st and October 31st over the next five years due to construction/grading. Other than that the only noise is again the traffic along Highway 101 and the current agricultural/industrial uses. The new noise from the construction/ grading will be confined to the stream channel. Mechanical equipment could individually reach noise levels of up to 80 to 90 dB. While there would be intermittent vibrations there are no current land sensitive uses nearby that would be affected. There would be no increased traffic on U.S. Highway 101 or County roads due to the channel maintenance. The channel maintenance activities would affect recreationist using San Lorenzo Regional Park only while they utilize park facilities. Lastly the Project is not located within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Amendments: The noise required to maintenance the channel would be minimal and temporary. Once the channel maintenance is complete the noise return to existing levels. Therefore no additional amendments are required.
Population and Housing A) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
B) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: The Project would not significantly interfere with any existing population or housing. There would be no new housing constructed and no new roads constructed therefore no population growth would be induced in the area as a result of the Project. Since the Project site is not located near existing housing the Project would not displace any housing or people.
Amendments: There is no significant population or housing thus, no amendments are needed to ensure their protection.
Public Services A) Would the project area result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, need, or construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities?
Determination: Less than Significant
Analysis: Public services during the maintenance activities related to fire and police protection, schools, parks and other public facilities. During the construction activities, maintaining equipment, avoiding smoking, and refueling outside the project area are essential in reducing potential risks. Post-construction, the site will not require fire or police response, nor will it create any new facilities or services. An increase in demand for or use of schools, parks, or other public facilities such as libraries and hospitals is not included in the impacts of the activity. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Amendments: After analysis, the public services impact determination of less than significant is sufficient and does not required further amendments.
Recreation A) Would increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities that substantially deteriorate occur or be accelerated?
B) Would the expansion of a recreation facility which might have adverse physical effects on the environment occur?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: During the maintenance period of the program, no new residential or commercial uses are proposed and included in the program. The maintenance would not increase the use of existing or create a new recreational facility or structure. Therefore, no impacts to the environment would occur.
Amendment: Since the maintenance program does not affect the existence or creation of a recreation structure, no amendments are necessary.
Transportation and Traf ic A) Would the program cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
B) Would the program contribute to exceeding the level of service standards?
C) Would the program result in a change in air traffic patterns?
D) Would the program substantially increase hazards due to a design feature?
E) Would the program result in inadequate emergency access?
F) Would the program result in inadequate parking capacity? G) Would conflict with policies, plans, or programs support alternative transportation?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: The maintenance program is located near U.S. Highway 101 and various County roads, which cross the Salinas River in the project site. However, the channel maintenance activities would not affect the access to the channel reach and would not affect the existing roadways. Therefore, no environmental impacts would occur.
Amendments: Due to no impacts found related to transportation and traffic, no further amendments are required or necessary.
Utility and Service Systems A) Would this program exceed wastewater treatment requirements for the Regional Water Quality Control Board?
B) Would this program required the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansions of existing facilities?
C) Would the program require construction of a new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
D) Would the program have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project for existing entitlements and resources?
E) Would the program result in the determination of wastewater treatment providers?
F) Would the program be served by a landfill for solid waste disposal needs?
G) Would the program comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste?
Determination: No Impact
Analysis: The maintenance program would not require or generate any solid waste or wastewater that is unmanageable for typical stream channel maintenance, requiring new facilities for wastewater or solid waste treatment plants. Therefore, no impacts occur for the program.
Amendment: There are no significant impacts for the Utilities and Service Systems, so no further amendments will be implemented.
Conclusion In conclusion, from analyzing the impacts of the Channel Maintenance Program (CMP) it is clear that the Project would have no significant negative effects. Ideally the Salinas would not be interfered with as it is part of its natural cycle to flood the overlying plains. This is what created the fertile agricultural land that currently resides on these plains in the first place. However it is impractical to expect farmers/land owners to move off of this both valuable and vulnerable land. Therefore a system needs to be established to facilitate how the Salinas is managed, monitored, and maintenance; and the revised Channel Maintenance Program is a suitable response. The main amendments would be to construct any levees along existing roads and outside the riparian area. This would allow the Salinas to move freely across the landscape without the threat of being channelized by linear levees. However, from reading over the document it seems that the measures that the document wants to add to the current CMP are well thought-out and would be an added benefit to the Salinas. In dreaming the Salinas it would be important to include on the agenda. References
Entrix. Salinas River Channel Maintenance Program. Rep. Monterey County Water Resources Agency, June 2009. Web. 1 June 2011. < h t t p : / / www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/Agency_data/SRCMP/SR%20CMP_MN D _ P u b l i c %20Draft_7-1-09.pdf>.
North SLO County Map II.2: Municipal Water Companies
1.0 Introduc on The Salina’s river travels a hundred and seventy miles, in this span it runs through two counties and numerous cities. In the following section we shall examine the municipal water stakeholders in the major cities that rely upon the Salinas. A city was deemed to be major if it possessed a population over ten thousand along with possessing a formal water system. The water system could be either privately or publicly run.
Following the designation of major cities an examination by the following categories: public or private water supply, citizens served, growth rate, sources of water, expansion plans, general conservation efforts, Salinas’s river management plans, Salina’s river Conservation plans, and dependency on the Salinas was performed. Information was taken from individual cities web addresses and the New York Times toxic water series. These categories were used to devise each cities general water description, policies, and future needs.
2.0 Stakes and Interest: Individual Ci es In this section counties along with individual cities will be examined.
2.1 Monterey County The County of Monterey occupies the upper half of the Salinas River Valley. Its cities are primary agricultural driven with relatively small populations, Salinas city stands as an exception. Citizens are clustered in the cities of Salinas and Monterey the two largest cities of the county. As a county Monterey sponsors the Monterey County Resource Agency an organization that researches and provides conservation efforts. This organization provides each city along with unincorporated land both general and Salinas’s specific conservation methods.
2.1.1 Salinas The city of Salinas sits at he most northern point of the river. It is the largest city with a population hovering near 150,000. Growth in the region was calculated being at 2.43% over the last ten years. The private companies of Cal-Water and Alco handle water distribution. Cal-Water is a large corporation that spans multiple cities throughout the state of California. At the time of this report it serves an estimated 98,730 citizens (65%) of Salinas. Water for these two corporations comes from aquifers and underground wells that are replenished by the Salinas River. These basins are being over drafted to meet demand. In terms of conservation Cal-Water has readily available general water conservation plans and efforts listed on its website. These plans primary indicate domestic water conservation efforts. While plans are listed little is offered about local integration in Salinas. Cal-Water also does not possess Salinas’s river specific management or conservation plan. Lack of site-specific plans is most likely rooted in that Cal-Water manages numerous cities at once. At the time of writing this report a website and subsequent information for the Alco Company could not be obtained. Salina’s city website only possesses links to the Cal-Water website for information regarding city water policy. No information could be found on the cities website about expansion plans over the water system. It may be that at the moment expansion is not warranted, as the population growth is relatively low. It can however be reasonable concluded that at some point in the future the city will need to expand its water sources. Over drafting of the underground water sources will at some point exhaust the finite resource. It would be wise for the city of Salinas to implement management policies now in order to avoid future problems. Allowing for proper recharge of the underground aquifers would be the best policy.
2.2.2 King City King City sits near the end of the river south of Salinas. Currently it possesses a population under 11,600 making it the smallest city examined. Growth in the region was calculated being at 8.135 over the last ten years. This growth while appearing large has may be overstated, as the population is still relatively low. As with Salinas’s the private company of Cal-Water handles water distribution, Cal-Water being a large corporation spanning multiple cities throughout the state. At the time of this report it serves an estimated 11,150 citizens (96%) in the city proper. Water for the city is entirely driven from underground wells that are replenished by the Salinas River. Cal-Water provides general water conservation plans, but no city or Salina’s river specific plans. King city’s website only possesses links to the Cal-Water website for information regarding city water policy, little to now information about the city’s water if given. King city would be wise to expand the availability of information regarding its water supply. Transparency can allow citizens to understand the need to conserve and maintain the Salina’s river. In addition the city needs to develop specific management practices that are tailored to the city itself.
2.2.3 Monterey Monterey sits on the ocean near the end of the river south west of Salinas. Monterey is unique in this study as it owns a declining population rate of -6.7%. Population for the city proper has been given to be 30,131. Water distribution is handled the private company of California –American water. Cal-Am is similar to other large water corporations that in that it spans multiple cities throughout the nation. Water for the city comes from the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin, which are in turn filled by the Salinas River. Cam-Am provides has general water conservation plans and efforts on its website. No information is given on incorporating these plans into their respective cities. It also does not possess Salinas’s river specific management or conservation plan. The declining city population makes it difficult to gauge future impacts on the river. If population continues to decline then demand on water from the river will naturally decrease. However a declining population cannot be always counted on.
2.2.4 Greenfield Greenfield is another small community located in the northern region of the Salinas river valley. It has a population hovering near the 13,000 mark. Growth in the city over the past ten years has been 22.95%. While the rate is remarkable it must also be taken into the context of the low overall population rate. Greenfield takes this growth rate as a sign it needs to expand water storage and is embarking on a plan to build a 1.5 million gallon storage facility. Meaning that the city will have to acquire new water rights from the river, creating more demand on a already strained system. The water distribution is handled by the city itself with the Greenfield public works department. The department relies solely on wells for its water supply, serving 12,948 citizens. The public works department gives no guidance on water conservation efforts. It similarly has no information regarding river management and conservation plans. Efforts should be made to implement water conservation plans to help lower demand on the river. The city of Greenfield cannot rely upon the though that it can acquire new water rights from the Salina’s.
2.2.5 Soledad Soledad is a small community located in the northern region of the Salinas river valley. It has a population hovering near the 13,000 mark. Growth in the city over the past ten years has been 33.9%. While the rate is remarkable it must also be taken into the context of the low overall population rate. Soledad has not listed or taken any efforts to expand its water supply system. The water distribution is handled by the city itself with the Soledad Water department. The department relies solely on wells for its water supply, serving 12,789 citizens. The water department has general guidance for conservation listed on its website. These general guidelines however not enforced and the city itself says they are not in effect. It has no information regarding river management and conservation plans. It would be best for the city to enforce the voluntary guidelines that it already has in place. By being proactive the City of Soledad can avoid future problems.
2.3 San Luis Obispo County The County of San Luis Obispo occupies the lower half of the Salinas River Valley. Its cities are midsized and possess extensive agricultural operations. Unique to the area is Camp Roberts and Cal Poly, two institutions that add many people to the area but unofficially counted in census data. Cities in the county have been largely more proactive in water conservation than their counterparts in Monterey County. Cities of the county have begun the Nacimiento Water Project, a project that aims at building dams and pipelines to augment the counties groundwater supply.
2.3.1 Camp Roberts Camp Roberts is a military base for the Air National Guard. The base has a population of 20,380, which remains relative stable. Water sources for the base come from the three wells that draw on the Paso Robles groundwater basin. No information regarding the management or conservation efforts for the base could be found at the time of writing this report.
2.3.2 Paso Robles Paso Robles is a mid sized community sitting near the middle of the Salinas River. Its community is size is rapidly growing at a rate of 19.32% over the last ten years. The city operates its own municipal water company titled the Paso Robles Water Department. This Department currently serves roughly 22,500 citizens. Water for the city exclusively comes from underground sources, specifically the Paso Robles Basin and Salinas River underflow. The city lists water conservation plans on its website and integrates them into the community. Citizens can receive rebates if they subscribe to certain policies set forth by the city. Rebating encourage citizens participation in healthy water practices. These plans include domestic and agricultural methods to conserve water. Undoubtedly these efforts are being made to help the city cope with their rising population. What makes Paso Robles unique is that they were the only city to list Salinas Specific conservation efforts on their city website. Paso Robles is buying up property on the Salinas and turning into to a wildlife reserve. In addition the city gives other Salinas specific conservation plans and policies. If a model were to be used for the other municipal members Paso Robles website and practices would be the best choice. While the city is being proactive in water conservation it will need to expand its water resource. Even with conservation methods the city is rapidly running through its underground water supply. Paso aims at augmenting it underground water with participation in the Nacimiento water project.
2.3.3 Atascadero Atascadero is another mid sized city similar to that of Paso Robles. It sits just south of Paso Robles in the lower section of the Salinas River Valley. Similarly to Paso the community is rapidly growing at 7.14% over the last ten years. It differs from Paso Robles in that a private company handles the water distribution of the city. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company handles almost the entire cities water system. Serving some 25,000 customers, the company is by far the largest provider in the area. Water for the city comes from wells that extract water from underground aquifers. Atascadero hopes to supplement this water source with its participation in the Nacimiento water project. Citing their growing populous the city has partnered with other local cities to expand water supply. Atascadero’s official city website merely officers a link to the private companies website. Once arriving at the Mutual Water Companies site, one can find general water conservation practices. Little is said however on how the company integrates these systems into their water supply. Atascadero could benefit from having a set plan on implementing the water conservation efforts that company lists. Offering monetary rewards has often been a successful way to get citizens to conserve water. The city should examine Paso Robles practices to help implement policy changes.
2.3.4 San Luis Obispo At the headwaters of the Salinas River sits the city of San Luis Obispo. It is the second largest city sitting on the Salinas. With a population of near 43,000 San Luis Obispo, the city is relatively stagnant with a growth rate of 0.62%. It water sources come from the Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) Whale Rock Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, recycled water, and groundwater. Its citizens are served by a publicly run water system under the San Luis Obispo Water Department. Currently 42,500 citizens rely upon the city for water supply. While the population has remained stagnate the city has been proactive in securing new water sources. San Luis Obispo is the lead agency in the Nacimiento Water Project. It also has been the proactive in conservation efforts of its water; specifically the city uses plants to recycle water. The city itself offers numerous methods of water conservation on its website and shows how they integrate these into the system. Citizens can even receive monetary benefits if they follow city policies on water conservation. While the city supplies bountiful information on general water conservation efforts it is mum on Salinas specific criteria. As San Luis Obispo has the critical role on being at the head of the Salinas River it would be ideal for it to develop Salina’s specific conservation plans. San Luis Obispo could provide a shining example for all the other stakeholders to follow. As it is now the largest recycle of water it would have little problem adding additional conservation methods.
3.0 Conclusion The different cities of the Salina’s river valley represent many different forms of water management. Paso Robles has by far taken the lead in providing not only general conservation practices but also Salina’s specific plans. It should be noted that cities might very well have plans to conserve the Salinas River but access to them is limited. If this is the case the individual city should make efforts similar to that of San Luis Obispo and Paso Robles. Both of these cities provided their data in easy to access manners on the official city website. The Salina’s river valley cities each could improve by making information regarding conservation more readily available. Average citizens will not take extraordinary amounts of effort to find city management plans and conservation benefits. Furthermore efforts should be made by the privately held water companies to provide site-specific conservation plans. Cal-Water and Cal-Am only provided general conservation efforts that were not tailored to the individual city and region it was providing too. It is encouraging however that Paso Robles has begun efforts to conserve the Salinas hopefully other cities will follow. 4.0 References. City of Salinas:http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/ King City: http://www.kingcity.com/ City of Soledad: http://www.ci.soledad.ca.us/ City of Monterey:http://www.monterey.org/ City of Greenfield: http://ci.greenfield.ca.us/ City of Paso Robles: http://www.prcity.com/ City of Atascadero: http://www.atascadero.org/ City of San Luis Obispo:http://www.slocity.org/ Camp Roberts:http://www.calguard.ca.gov/CpRbts/Pages/default.aspx Monterey County Resource Agency: http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ County of San Luis Obispo: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/site4.aspx County of Monterey: http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/ New York Times Toxic Water Series: http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters II.3 Aggregate Companies II.4 Public II.5 Cultural Groups
II.6 Steelhead Fisheries
1.0 Background on Steelhead Fisheries The steelhead fishery is a major natural stakeholder of the Salinas River. The river provides habitat for steelhead migration, feeding, and spawning. Any modifications to water quality or the layout of the river and its tributaries directly affect the fish’s ability to survive. If river modifications alter the steelhead population, those that are ecologically connected to the steelhead will directly be affected as well. Steelhead are considered by many biologists and ecologists to be keystone species; their absence from their natural ecosystems will have a more than drastic affect on several other species.
In this project’s case, a fishery is considered as “a fishing ground or area where fish are caught,” or simply, a fish population of the same species present in a specifically defined area. Steelhead, or Oncorhynchus mykiss, Walbaum, are the most noted fishery present throughout the Salinas River. Steelhead are defined as the anadromous form of rainbow trout, meaning that they migrate from freshwater to the ocean, and return to freshwater to spawn. They typically move to the ocean after approximately two years of living in freshwater. Unlike many other Pacific salmon, the Coastal Steelhead is able to spawn more than once in their lifetime, though they typically only survive long enough to spawn once (“Steelhead, Central California”). Female steelhead dig a nest in the stream where there is a suitable amount of gravel where they deposit their batch of eggs. They deposit multiple nests into different spots in the river at once, because the roe are seldom allowed to hatch due to a number of external factors. There are two types of steelhead, winter and summer, which are designated by the season during which enter their home stream (Watershed Fisheries Report). Steelhead can live as long as eleven years, but many do not due to deteriorating conditions in their natural habitats (“Steelhead, Central California”).
The history of steelhead in the Salinas River has been extremely unstable. The Salinas River was historically known to have large population of steelhead, which have started to decrease due to human activities on and around the river. Prior to 1850, it was estimated that there were anywhere between one and two million steelhead present (Hunt, 2008). The hydrology of the Salinas River notably changed during the 1950’s and 1960’s, when the San Antonio and Nacimiento dams were constructed to retain winter runoff. Other levees were constructed to restrict channel migration and prevent flooding. Surface water flows during the summer months were increased due to releases from upstream reservoirs (MCWRA 2003). As a result, in 1960 it was estimated that there were about 600,000 fish, which was reduced by over fifty percent in 1980 to only 275,000. As the development of California progressed, the numbers continued to decrease to the present level of only about 3,500 fish (Hunt, 2008).
2.0 Threats to the Salinas River Fisheries The Salinas River’s proximity to poorly managed agricultural and urban developments have made it susceptible to many negative impacts. The historic function of the Salinas River has been altered dramatically to cater to human needs, with little consideration for endemic wildlife and vegetation.
One of the main threats to steelhead in the Salinas River are manmade structures that hinder or even stop natural migration patterns, which reduce spawning rates as well as reduce habitat. Examples of man-made structures include road crossings, dams, fences, and other human devices. Dams are a major impact to steelhead as they prohibit migration to upstream habitat. The first dam on the Salinas was built near Santa Margarita and then later, Nacimiento and San Antonio Rivers were also dammed (WFR), which caused a major loss in population. Many streams have also been altered to put in these structures. Conditions that were once favorable to steelhead, such as lush vegetation, cover and pools, are now severely reduced or completely gone. One common situation is stream straightening for road construction, causing extensive erosion, increased water velocity, and pool reduction (WFR III5).
Another threat is decreased water quality caused by: excessive sedimentation from erosion due to lack of vegetation; nutrient loading from surrounding agriculture operations; runoff from urban areas; and toxic chemicals. In parts of the Salinas River, the bottoms are becoming lower and the stream banks are becoming steeper, conditions which inevitably contribute to extensive erosion. The lack of natural flooding, which slowed the flow of water, the river produces high speeds that degrade the river bottom (WFR). The culmination of these elements are highly detrimental to juvenile steelhead survival as food sources, water levels and vegetative cover decrease (“Species Profile.”)
Coupled with degraded water quality, reduction in water quantity is caused by increased demands for water from the Salinas River. The demands stem from agricultural irrigation, population increase, forestry and mining operations, and drought intensification as a result of climate change. The reduction in water reduces the amount of habitat viable for the steelhead. The low amount of water can also be attributed to lack of vegetation as water cannot infiltrate the soil(WFRIII-19). When water levels are low enough, off-road vehicles that frequent the dry creek damage the channel by compacting gravel, killing young vegetation and leaving vehicle debris in the creek beds(WFR III8). Furthermore, lower water levels lead to increased temperatures, pushing the steelhead past their limits of tolerance. As vegetation slowly declines and the width of the river expands, more area is exposed to sunlight, increasing water temperature(WFR III-16). Another issue which should be noted is genetic modification from hatchery fish and other introduced fish. In some cases, introduced species often crowd out the endemic populations and end up replacing the endemic species. Lastly, transient populations commonly impede stream flow, predate fish, litter, and defecate in the water. Many of these situations are difficult to address as they largely stem from non-point sources.
The current ecological status of the steelhead fisheries present in the Salinas River is somewhat grim. Steelhead were federally listed as threatened in 1997, and reconfirmed again in 2006 (“Salinas River NWR”). The National Marine Fisheries Service has designated the Salinas River Basin as critical habitat for steelhead (“Salinas River NWR”). “A priority number of “3” was assigned to the CCC steelhead DPS in accordance with the Recovery Priority Guidelines (55 FR 24296, Section B) and indicates the priority of the species for recovery plan development and implementation. “Ranking for CCC steelhead is based on a high degree of threat, a low-moderate recovery potential, and anticipated conflict with development projects or other economic activity” (Hunt, 2008).
3.0 Other Species Present The current diversity of fish species within the Salinas River is not very extensive. Steelhead are the dominant stock throughout the entirety of the river’s length. The Sacramento pike minnow is also commonly found throughout the river, along with mosquito fish and Sacramento perch. Other aquatic species include crayfish and bullfrogs (“Salinas River.”). More diversity is found in the Salinas Lagoon, where the Salinas River empties into Monterey Bay. Besides steelhead, carp, bluegill, whitefish, and starry flounder are only a few of the 23 fish species documented throughout the refuge waters. The Salinas Lagoon is part of the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, under federal protection (“Salinas River NWR”).
4.0 Court Cases Regarding Salinas River Fisheries There have been recent lawsuits involving the coastal California steelhead. In November 2010, the Coastal Alliance for Species Enhancement filed a lawsuit in San Mateo County requesting “Court order the Governor as well as the Resources Agency, State Parks, and the Department of Fish and Game to comply with and enforce the California Endangered Species Act in the mismanaged, state-owned Pescadero Marsh Nature Preserve located on the coast of San Mateo County” (“Coastal Alliance”). This habitat had been home to a number of species that were either threatened or endangered, including the steelhead. This habitat has been severely degraded since the 1990’s, due to lack of steelhead species law enforcement. The work that has been done on the marsh in the recent years has left it in an altered state that is not suitable for the species that are present. There was an alteration to a major sandbar in the marsh, which has created a seasonal delay and altered salinity (“Coastal Alliance”). In the document that was sent in to the Supreme Court, the steelhead received special mention , saying “An unknown number of juvenile steelhead suffocate each year in the brackish waters of the marsh when rains force open the sandbar at the mouth of the lagoon and the ocean flows in like a fire hose, mixing layers of freshwater and saltwater. Scientists believe this mixing stirs up toxic hydrogen sulfide and robs the water of oxygen the fish require to breathe”(“Coastal Alliance”). This is an issue that locals in the area have experience frequently experienced, and they have finally had enough.
Another case that involving the steelhead was resolved in August 2010. Irrigation districts in the central valley were attempting to delist the steelhead, so that they would be able to use more water without worrying about the negative implications the steelhead would face. The irrigation counties argued that the listing violated the Endangered Species Act because “steelhead and rainbow trout interbreed, and the statute therefore requires NMFS to treat them as a single species” (“California’s Wild Steelhead”). The steelhead was supported by a variety of groups, from Trouts Unlimited to the Center for Biological Diversity and The Federation of Fly Fishers. When the final ruling came down, the court ruled in favor of protection of the steelhead. This court ruling is a positive sign for the future of steelhead, because they have a large amount of public and legal support. If current support patterns continue throughout the Salinas River, then it is possible for the Steelhead to recover to historic populations.
5.0 Current Management Prac ces There are several management techniques and goals that are taking place in order to foster the recovery of steelhead, both in the Salinas River and throughout California. One of these is the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program, which was established in 1981. According to the Department of Fish and Game website, this program was established “in response to rapidly declining populations of wild salmon and steelhead trout and deteriorating fish habitat in California” (“Fisheries Restoration”). Since its creation, it has invested over 180 million dollars to support projects that will help to facilitate habitat and growth of the species. Between 2000 and 2006, they claim to have treated 895 miles of stream, stabilized 53 miles of bank, and restored over 5000 acres of riparian habitat (“Fisheries Restoration”). Although this is a step in the right direction, it is not helping the populations of steelhead, as they have not seen any noticeable increase in population size since the induction of the program.
Since steelhead are a popular species to fly fisherman, they have started practicing certain techniques in order to help increase the populations. A key to the recovery of steelhead is fish recycling, which means that once they are caught they are then released so that they are not removing any steelhead from the population (Milne, 2011). In order to ensure that none of the steelhead die in this process, strict regulations have been set by the Department of Fish and Game. One of these regulations is the use of barbless hooks, which helps to ensure that the fish do not die when they are hooked by the fisherman. Fishing is only allowed on Wednesday, weekends, and holidays (Milne, 2011).
Currently, there is heated controversy regarding a proposed maintenance project along the Salinas River, referred to as the Salinas River Channel Maintenance Program. Recently, farmers began clearing debris and vegetation from the river to keep water from backing up, and reducing flooding potential. However, environmentalists argue that clearing practices are damaging the highly fragile ecosystem within the river, which threatened species such as steelhead depend on for survival. Changing one part of the river affects has lasting affects on the entirety of the river, regarding flow and habitat for steelhead. Also, natural vegetation serves as a buffer between the agricultural fields and the river, absorbing some of the silt and pesticides that would normally enter the water and reduce its quality (Taylor 1).
As a result of these challenges from environmental groups, an Initial Study for the project was published in June of 2009, and found to have a Negative Declaration (“Salinas River Maintenance”). After the project was open to public comment later that year, the Monterey Coastkeeper environmental group challenged the negative declaration, claiming that the findings used to establish the decision were “flawed.” Based on this evidence, the Regional Water Quality Control Board ordered that a full environmental impact report be conducted for the project in late 2009. As of now, funding for the EIR is still lacking. Without permits to begin the project, the river has begun to undergo immense growth of vegetation and debris accumulation, beginning the transformation back into its original state (Taylor 1).
Without permission to continue with their river-clearing practices, farmers have sat back and blamed the March 2011 flooding and ruined crops on the river’s lack of maintenance (Taylor 1). Additionally, this vegetation growth has been blamed for preventing sufficient downstream flow and groundwater recharge, and thus water availability for land owners ("Farm Bureau Monterey"). References
"California's Wild Steelhead Win, Irrigators Lose Court Battle." Environment News Service. Environment News Service, 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 03 June 2011.
"Central California Coast Steelhead DPS." NMFS Southwest Region Front Page. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office, 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 02 June 2011.
"Coastal Alliance for Species Enhancement Asks Superior Court Judge for Help." Coastal Alliance for Species Enhancement. San Mateo Times, 9 Nov. 2010. Web. 03 June 2011.
"Fisheries Restoration Grant Program." California Department of Fish and Game. Web. 03 June 2011.
Hunt, Lawrence E. "South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Planning Area: Conservation Action Planning Workbooks Threat Assessment." Green Space Cambria, 2008. Web. 1 June 2011.
Milne, Brian. "Steelhead Fishing in Central California." Fly Fishing. About.com. Web. 28 May 2011.
"Salinas River." Anglerweb. Web. 30 May 2011.
"Salinas River Channel Maintenance." Farm Bureau Monterey n. pag. Web. 28 May 2011.
"Salinas River Maintenance." (2009): n. pag. Web. 30 May 2011.
"Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge." Fws.org. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dec. 2002. Web. 1 June 2011.
"Species Profile: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates." Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. National Biological Information Infrastructure. Web. 1 June 2011.
"Steelhead, Central California Coast DPS." Wild Equity Institute. Wild Equity Institute, 2009. Web. 03 June 2011.
"The Salinas River." Monterey County. Web. 28 May 2011.
Taylor, Dennis. "The Salinas River divided." Pajaro Watershed Information Center (2011): 1. Web. 30 May 2011.
"Watershed Fisheries Report and Early Actions: A Study of the Upper Salinas River and Tributaries." US-LT RCD. Upper Salinas - Las Tablas Resource Conservation District, Mar. 2002. Web. 2 June 2011.
1.0 Nitrates in Salinas River Watershed The Salinas River is 155 miles long and is fed by the major tributaries of the Namcimento and San Antonio Rivers in the southern end of the Salinas Valley. The river flows north- northwest and drains into Monterey Bay. The Salinas River also serves are the main source of water for the Salinas Valley Farms and vineyards. In Monterey County, the Salinas River is fed by the Arroyo Seco River. The Salinas River is a shallow river, with most of its flowing water, underground, which makes it the longest underground river in America. The Salinas River does not run directly into Monterey Bay but it flows into Monterey Bay with the help of two manmade channels that divert the water out to Moss Landing Harbor and the bay.
There are many stakeholders in the Monterey Bay Area that are involved with the water management plan. For our project we decided to look at the nitrates and pesticides that are carried into Monterey’s waterways via the Salinas River. The Salinas River is one of the most contaminated rivers in the world. Agricultural discharges have turned this river into a green soup of nitrates, pesticides and toxic algae. The pollutants that are carried downstream by the Salinas River are contaminating Monterey Bay and causing sea otters, sea lions and sea birds to get very sick or, in some cases, killing them. Agriculture in the Salinas Valley farms mostly consists of leafy greens. The agricultural discharges from Salinas Valley farms have polluted the river to such an extent that this river has one of the highest levels of nitrates of any river in the world. In the summer, the river is actually a bright green with a thick mat of toxic algae. The fertilizer doesn’t just impair the Salinas River, but when all the nitrates and algae flow downstream, it flushes out to Monterey Bay which has its own problems hurting the ecosystem there. Nitrates have also polluted 28% of the groundwater wells in the Monterey Area, which not only hurts the environment but hurts the farm workers living in small rural communities. Sea otters have been washing up dead on the beach with acute liver failure from eating shellfish poisoned by the toxic algae. The otters decline is showing the deterioration of the marine ecosystem in Monterey Bay. Another area of concern for the nitrates is that the Salinas River is a major watershed that flows into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Our Vision Statement regarding nitrates will address our proposed actions to reduce the amount of nitrates that flow downstream.
2.0 Pes cides in Salinas River Watershed The Salinas Valley along the Central Coast of California is known as the nation’s salad Bowl, and is the most productive vegetable producing region in the U.S. The Salinas River Watershed covers just over 10,000 square kilometers. It includes aquatic habitats, as the river runs through the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge estuarine and into the Monterey Bay. The two most commonly used pesticides in the Salinas Valley are chlorpyrifos and diazinon and they are used in the Salinas Valley on lettuce, artichokes, greenhouse transplants, strawberries, broccoli, cauliflower, and outdoor flowers.
The agricultural use of diazinon and chlorpyrifos includes aerial spray or near-ground spraying from a tractor. The ways that pesticides are transported away from fields is by over spraying or by leaching through the soil and into the groundwater. In Monterey County, granular pesticides are also applied with seeds at the time of planting. Irrigation and rainwater runoff can wash residual pesticides off fields and into nearby watershed. The river is a migration passageway for threatened salmonids, such as the steelhead, and provides habitats for various species of wildlife including waterfowl, mammal, and amphibian species. Pesticides are a necessary component to successful agricultural production and are also the main source of toxicity in the Salinas River watershed, they harm the wildlife within the watershed and lowers water quality.
Migratory waterfowl can ingest pesticides while preening; preening is the act of cleaning their feathers. The amount of toxic chemicals ingested during preening is unknown, however any amount could be harmful. Steelhead is a threatened salmonid that has the potential to be found in the Salinas River. Steelhead start out as rainbow trout and undergo the transformation into steelhead when a migrating to the ocean . For this reason it is useful to compare chlorpyrifos and diazinon occurrence in the Salinas River to the acceptable threshold values for rainbow trout. Regardless of increases, decreases, and variability in pesticide concentrations, chlorpyrifos and diazinon are still present in the Salinas River watershed in concentrations that are known to be toxic to aquatic ecosystems due to a small amount of pesticides applied for agricultural purposes.
These pesticides can have a variety of biological impacts, including bioaccumulation, reduced amounts of anadromous species, algal blooms, mortality due to toxicity, transfer of pathogens to wildlife and humans, and interference with recreational use of the watershed. It is important to maintain monitoring programs prevent further contamination in the watershed as well as monitoring significant impacts regarding the level of harmful chemicals in the water. Our Vision Statement regarding pesticides will address our proposed actions to reduce the amount of nitrates that flow downstream.
3.0 List of Stakeholders in the Monterey Bay Area California American Water California Coastal Commission California Coastal Conservancy California Department of Fish and Game California State University Monterey Bay California State Water Resources Control Board Carmel River Steelhead Association Carmel River Watershed Conservancy Carmel Unified School District Carmel Valley Association City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City of Del Rey Oaks City of Pacific Grove City of Sand City City of Seaside Monterey Bay Citizen Watershed Monitoring Network Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Monterey County Service Area 50 Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District NOAA Fisheries Pebble Beach Community Service District Pebble Beach Company Planning and Conservation League Regional Water Quality Control Board Resource Conservation District of Monterey County Seaside Basin Watermaster State Department of Parks & Recreation Surfrider Foundation The Nature Conservancy The Watershed Institute at CSUMB U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serve Ventana Wilderness Society
4.0 Vision Statements for Nitrates and Pes cides in Monterey Bay Vision Statement for Nitrates
As organic matter decomposes, nitrogen is slowly converted to ammonium, which is absorbed by plant roots. Excess ammonium is turned into nitrate, which plants also use to produce protein. However, unused nitrates remain in the groundwater, resulting in leaching of the soil. There is no way around this. Each individual crop has its own unique nitrogen requirement, and there is a vast range of required levels of nitrogen amongst the different crops grown in the Salinas Valley. We as a group, found two possible courses of action to help reduce the nitrate levels in the Salinas River and surrounding watershed.
The first option is to offer some type of government incentive to farmers who are willing to stop growing field and vegetable crops that have excessively high nitrogen requirements and switch to crops with much lower levels of required nitrogen. The incentive could potentially be in the form of a subsidy paid to the farmer for growing a specific crop, or reduced prices of water for those farmers who chose to participate in the program. Our idea is centered around rating each crop on a scale of 1 to 10 based on overall nitrogen requirements. Then farmers would be able to be rewarded on a numerical system based on the change in nitrogen requirements from their original crop to the new crop. This could potentially give farmers enough financial incentive to help maintain the health of the Salinas River on their own volition, without force from any governmental agency.
Our other possible course of action is more heavily weighted towards government policy, and monetary penalties for not following the policies. In this option, we would like to see the appropriate agencies establish more strict regulations regarding levels of nitrates allowed to flow into, not only the Salinas River, but any body of water that drains into the Monterey Bay. If this were put into action, farmers would need to monitor their runoff much more closely. They could construct a channel at the low end of their field to catch a higher percentage of their nitrate filled runoff. All farmers would be subject to testing and inspection by the agency that implements this plan. If it is found that they are not abiding by the regulations, they would face financial penalties that are much greater than the fines in place currently.
Either of these options would significantly help the situation facing the Salinas River and the Monterey Bay. Something needs to be done soon, because without action, the Salinas Valley will continue down a path that leads to toxic levels of nitrates in the water, and increased death tolls of many of the area’s native species. We as Californians need to do whatever is necessary to ensure the longevity of one of our state’s most beautiful, and important regions, the Salinas Valley.
Vision Statement for Pesticides The Salinas River is polluted by pesticides that run into the river from the agricultural lands within the Salinas River watershed. Our vision for Monterey Bay is an area where the environment and associated ecosystems, human health, and socio-economic development are protected through rational use of pesticides. We envision a society in which organic food and other non-toxic produce are the standard. Collaboration between public and private agencies will occur to determine environmental responsible solutions for pest management. All stakeholders will be involved in the decision-making process regarding pesticide use and its management. Polluters will be financially responsible for the harm they cause on the environment. Mitigation projects and sensible planning will prevent against pesticide intrusion into the Salinas River, enhancing habitat downstream and into Monterey Bay. With this vision in mind, Monterey Bay will be a sustainable and healthy ecosystem.
This vision can be accomplished through activities similar to nitrate reduction in the river. Farmers that are heavily reliant on pesticides and cannot afford to implement more eco- friendly pest management practices should be identified. Government financial assistance will help transition over to these types of pest management practices. Hopefully by assisting the farmer financially as they begin to implement new practices, they will soon be able to practice environment friendly agriculture on their own. Strict government regulations on the types of pesticides, quantity, and locations where they are applied will help reduce the amount of pesticide in the area before it is able to reach the Salinas River. Finally, public education workshops can aid farmers in using pesticides rationally and inform them of the impacts that pesticides have on Monterey Bay. Works Cited http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/Mbay_IRWM/MontereyPeninsulaIRWMP20071119- ExecSum.pdf http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/03/14/18674548.php http://www.mtycounty.com/pgs-misc/salinas-river.html Part III: Water Budget
III.1 Headwaters III.2 Tributaries III.3 Appropriators III.4 Groundwater Extraction III.5 Mandatory Dam Releases
III.6 Climate
1.0 Introduc on California is host to a vast array of climate conditions, and along the 170 miles of the Salinas River, there are several microclimates which allow for a great deal of biodiversity and unique ecosystems. These varied ecosystems and climates all influence the amount and quality of water entering the Salinas River watershed. We’ve selected several areas located along the Salinas River (Figure 1) that highlight these climate differences: near the headwaters in Santa Margarita, P a s o R o b l e s , Salinas, and near the outflow to the Pacific Ocean in M o n t e r e y , California. Figure 1. Map of the Salinas River. 2.0 Climate of the Salinas River Headwaters: The headwaters of the Salinas River begin near Santa Margarita Lake, approximately 20 km east of San Luis Obispo, within the Garcia Mountains. Existing roughly 2000 ft above sea level, this area experiences a slightly different climate than the rest of the river. The wind blows slightly harder, and rain falls more heavily, as this mountainous region is more exposed to the weather than the rest of the Salinas. This area experiences a hot semi-arid climate; with average highs of 82° F occur in August and September, the average lows of 42° F occur in January and December (Figure 2). The record high for this area was recorded at 112° F in September 1971, and the historic low was recorded at 12° F in December 1987. Average precipitation for the area is 24 in/year (Figure 3). The wet cool winters, dry hot summers, and mountainous terrain make for diverse vegetation. This area includes Oak woodlands, riparian corridors, high ridge chaparral, scrub, and a few open grassland areas.
3.0 The Climate of the Paso Robles The Salinas River stretches 170 miles through California. Four miles of the river travel through the city of Paso Robles (Paso Robles, 2010). The Salinas river spans a great length, as it stretches across California it encounters many different types of climates. Paso Robles is home to a chaparral environment. It is classified as a semi-arid, dry, steppe climate or the more common “Mediterranean type” (sljdhf). Paso Robles is home to long, hot and dry summers while the winter season is brief, cold and sometimes experiences precipitation. The unique environment allows for crop growing such as olives, grapes and almonds. The natural terrain of Paso Robles is composed of mainly grassland and oak woodland. This temperate climate offers similar temperatures throughout the year. The annual mean is 59.1 ° F. The annual maximum and minimum temperature vary no more than 20° higher or lower than the average, with 76.7° and 41.5° F, respectively. Though Paso Robles experiences a moderate climate, the city is susceptible to extreme high and low temperatures, the high, 117° and a low of 7° F (Figure 4). The city of Paso Robles covers 19.9 square miles. Because the city it is nestled along the foot of the Santa Lucia Coastal mountain range it experiences an array of elevations. The elevation in Paso Robles ranges from 675 to 1,100 feet with an average elevation of 740 feet. (State Water Resources Control Board, ). The city almost never encounters snowfall, not impossible, it has happened in the past. It is accustomed to low humidity levels. The proximity to the Pacific Ocean creates occasional coastal fog, but it never lasts a long time. The city experiences little to no rain in the summer and little precipitation in the winter months. and has an annual average rainfall of 15.04 inches (Figure 5).Paso Robles' watershed contributes a large drainage to the Salinas River. There are four main tributaries in the city, which are Arroyo Seco, Nacimiento, San Antonio and Estrella Rivers. The inflow from the tributaries into the rivers is seasonal depending on the rainfall. The average monthly flows are usually above 400 cubic feet per second, January through April, and lacks any measurable flow the remainder of the year.
4.0 Climate of Salinas California Salinas, CA has a typical climate of most coastal California cities. Salinas is located only 8 miles from the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the Salinas Valley, which allows for a mild, Mediterranean climate. Salinas lies at an elevation of about 52 feet above sea level, which also helps to contribute to the cool environment (GNIS Detail, 1981). It covers a total area of 22.8 square miles. The city of Salinas enjoys average annual temperatures of a low of 46.6°F and a high of 68.5°F (Figure 6). The overall average warmest month of the year is September, which has an average high of 75°F and low of 52°F. The average annual precipitation of Salinas is 15.1 inches, with the highest monthly average occurring in January with 2.99 inches of precipitation. Snowfall occurs within the city itself only every 10 or 20 years (Figure 7).
The Salinas River flows adjacent to the city of Salinas as underground flow, with no tributaries in the area near the city itself. Salinas is surrounded by the Gabilan and Santa Lucia mountain ranges to the east and west of the Salinas Valley. Although surrounded by mountains, Salinas lies on flat land that is primarily used for agriculture. The relatively flat terrain is comprised of floodplains and alluvial fans. Because of the great demand from agriculture, the underground flow adjacent to the city is what helps to irrigate crops in the dry parts of the year. The vegetation is primarily made up of agricultural crops, such as lettuce, artichokes, broccoli and spinach. Salinas provides 80% of the countries use of these crops, giving it the nickname “The Salad Bowl of the World” (History, 2009).
5.0 Climate of Monterey Bay area Monterey, just south from where the Salinas River flows into the Monterey Bay and then the Pacific Ocean, is located along the coast of California. The close proximity to the ocean, and low elevation allow for little variation in the annual temperatures in Monterey. Located at 36º 35’W 121º 53’N, (Google Earth) Monterey has an average annual high temperature of 65º F and an average annual low of 48º F (Figure 8).
The mean rainfall for a given year is approximately 20 inches, and with most of the rain falling in the winter months (Figure 9) (Western Regional Climate Center, 2010). This moisture regime often leads to comparisons of a Mediterranean climate. The mild temperatures of Monterey make precipitation other than rain very uncommon, although it does happen at higher elevations in the mountains surrounding Monterey.
The slightly warmer summers also allow for a great deal of fog accumulation in the Monterey Bay area, creating an ideal habitat for the closed-cone pine populations, particularly the Monterey Pine. The terrain of the area is mostly sand dunes, allowing plant varieties able to tolerate the coastal sandy soils including: Seaside Birds Beak (Cordylanthus rigidus littoralis), Yadon's piperia (Piperia yadonii), and Hickman’s potentilla (Potentilla hickmanii) (Cal Flora Database, 2011). The Monterey Bay area, is the end of the line for the Salinas River, but the coastal ecosystems also rely on the waters from the river.
6.0 Conclusions California is host to an array of climates, but as a whole is known for its “Mediterranean” climate with warmer, drier summers and wetter winter months. This trend is true for all locations along the Salinas River, as shown in Figures 3, 5, 7, and 9. While the mean annual temperatures, as well as actual volume of rainfall, varied for the different areas along the river, the variations can be attributed to the variety of elevations, proximities to the coast, and terrains. The most southern and inland areas, such as Paso Robles, show the greatest range of temperatures, while the more coastal zones, tend to be more consistent. While all this variability does fall under one climate type, it is key to consider the microclimates as well when making plans for the Salinas River Watershed. Works Cited
Calflora Database[web application]. 2011. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available: http://www.calflora.org/ (Accessed: Jun 02, 2011).
City of Paso Robles.2010. Paso Robles Ground Water Management Plan. [website] http://www.prcity.com/Government/departments/publicworks/water/pdf/GBMP/ presentations/BradleySubarea2.25.10.pdf. (Accessed: May 30, 2011)
City of Salinas, California Welcome to the City of Salinas, California. [Website] http:// www.ci.salinas.ca.us/visitors/history.cfm. (Accessed: 31 May 2011. )
State Water Resource Control Board. 2005. Paso Robles National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Storm Water Management Plan." [Website.] http:// www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/swmp/ paso_robles_swmp.pdf (Accessed: May 30, 2011) U.S. Geologic Survey Board on Geographic Names (BGN) GNIS Detail - Salinas. [Website]http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq: 3:430937104048976::NO::P3_FID:277589. (Accessed: 31 May 2011. )
Volunteer Precipitation Gauge Station Monthly Precipitation Report." San Luis Obispo County Public Works. [web application] http://www.slocountywater.org/ (Accessed: May 20, 2011).
Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. [web application] http://www.wrcc.dri.edu (Accessed: May 30, 2011) Part IV: Existing Management Plans in the Salinas Watershed
1.0 Introduc on In California, the Salinas River stretches 170 miles long and is sustained by a nearly 4,600 square mile watershed (CCRWQCB). It is also the largest watershed flowing into the Monterey Bay. Within the watershed, pollutants, agricultural activities, urban development, vehicle usage, damaged habitat, and erosion are some of the problems that have made the Salinas River watershed a high priority for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). However, increased attention has brought with it management plans, developed in an attempt to improve and undo the negative effects of human activity on the watershed.
2.0 Salinas River Watershed Management Ac on Plan The “Salinas River Watershed Management Action Plan” (Action Plan), developed by the Regional Board and published on October 22, 1999, was one of the first attempts to unify resources in order to address issues affecting the watershed. The Action Plan attempts to facilitate management of the watershed through increased staffing, improved communication, and grant funding to stimulate cooperative solutions. One of the key features of the Action Plan is that it included a preliminary evaluation in 1997, as well as laid plans for a future assessment of the watershed. The Action Plan also declared the Regional Board’s responsibilities for and authority over the watershed.
The Action Plan includes a description of the Salinas River and its tributaries, as well as common land uses, development, groundwater basins, and dams existing in the watershed. It also characterized the impacts of these features on water quality. Identified impacts on the watershed include seawater intrusion, nitrate, pesticides and mercury contamination in surface and groundwater sources, erosion, and sedimentation often resulting from agriculture. Other potential pollutant sources located in the watershed include urban runoff, mines, oil fields, roads and highways, and point source pollution. The examination of nonpoint sources of pollution are emphasized in this plan, a key diversion from the Regional Board’s traditional exercise of authority only over point source pollution. The Salinas River and several of its tributaries have been listed by the Regional Board on the Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies.
In the Action Plan, the Regional Board noted several sources of authority, which would allow them to address the watershed. These sources are found in both Federal and State laws and regulations, including: the Federal Clean Water Act, the state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the Coast Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments. From these sources, the Regional Board noted their responsibility to protect the quality of the waters of the State of California, including: all surface, groundwater, and saline waters within the boundaries of the state. In addition, the Regional Board noted the need to develop and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), as well as place greater attention on nonpoint source pollution in order to fulfill the requirements of their authority.
The Action Plan also emphasizes cooperative action as a means of making marked progress in the watershed. Here the Regional Board notes that by unifying local interests and providing funding and other resources to enhance on-going efforts, more can be accomplished than with any one party. Due to the scale and complexity of issues facing the watershed, the Regional Board recognized the fact that partnerships between agencies are required to achieve effective solutions basin wide, with education and communication facilitating them. Finally, the Action Plan laid out a list of priorities for achieving its goals with the major theme being to act as a line of communication, connecting independent efforts so that greater progress can be made, as well as supporting cooperative projects.
The Action Plan, as it stands, has not evolved much since it was published in 1999. Its goals of cooperation and communication still apply today. However, with few realistic achievable goals, the plan’s amorphous form has little momentum of its own. Ultimately, a clearer framework is required if any real progress is to be made towards restoring the watershed, as opposed to only reducing the rate of its degradation. However, the Action Plan was effective in stimulating a response and continued progress as is seen in the management plans that have resulted from its initial commentary.
3.0 Upper Salinas River Watershed Ac on Plan The Upper Salinas River Watershed Action Plan (WAP) was completed on June 30, 2004, nearly five years after the Salinas River Watershed Management Action Plan was published. It was developed by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) and was the first comprehensive plan to address the watershed. The WAP contains five primary objectives including: improving water quality and ensuring adequate supply, supporting agricultural well being, reducing soil loss, enhancing habitat conditions, and improving land use policies. It differs from the Action plan in that the WAP was compiled as a reference for all stakeholders in the upper watershed, and lays out actions that all interests can take to aid in meeting the MCWRA’s goals.
Building on the Action Plan, the WAP includes a more thorough analysis of the watershed. It presents information about the quality and quantity of water, historical activity and its evolution, and detailed characterization of current issues in the watershed. The WAP contains extensive background on the watershed and the human activities that have hindered it. However, it is the chapters on outreach, public input, issues, goals, and strategies that have enabled the plan to stimulate positive action in the watershed.
Following the recommendation of the Action Plan, the WAP included significant public outreach prior to its publication. Frequent meetings were held over three years to attain public input and resulted in an extensive list of issues that should be addressed by WAP efforts. Ultimately, these meetings resulted in the formation of a Task Force including: government representatives, landowners, farmers, and special interests groups, which produced a comprehensive list of issues needing attention. A Technical Advisory Committee was also formed to organize Task Force Meetings and begin working on solutions to the issues that were presented.
Ultimately, the collective efforts of the Task Force, Technical Advisory Committee, and the MCWRA resulted in an attachment titled “Issues, Goals, and Strategies for the Upper Salinas River Watershed”. This attachment consists of an eighteen-page chart laid out with issue statements, the applicable goals and strategies, who the responsible party is, and when they will be addressed. The attachment is significant in that it has taken the upper watershed and determined the fifteen key issues challenging it. In addition, it describes the methods, parties, and timeline for addressing those issues in order to guide progress and measure it and has served as a sound description of the restoration work that must be undergone in the upper watershed.
4.0 Salinas Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Func onality Equivalent Plan The Salinas Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Functionality Equivalent Plan is really two plans combined, an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM Plan) and a Functionality Equivalent Plan (FEP). An IRWM Plan is encouraged by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the SWRCB, and is required when applying for grant funding. However, the DWR and SWRCB recognize that many communities already have plans similar to the IRWM Plan in place and therefore only require an FEP, which summarizes how the IRWM Plan is already met.
In 2006, the FEP was updated based on input from the DWR and SWRCB. In order to prove that adequate plans are in place to meet the requirements of the IWRM Plan, the FEP must discuss several categories. The FEP must describe several aspects of the region, including the agencies managing the water supply and the providers of water to the communities. It must also describe the current and future water resources available, the quality and quantity of water in these sources, and how the water is currently used and is planned to be used in the future within the region. Planning objectives must also be discussed, which include water quality, water supply, flood protection, and environmental enhancement. Water resource management goals are also included in the FEP, which further described goals within the planning objectives. An IRWM Plan requires certain goals, but many other goals were also considered.
An FEP must also include both short- and long-term regional priorities. The short-term priorities include projects that stop seawater intrusion and help to balance the water use within the basin, projects that help meet existing water demand, projects that re-establish steelhead in the Arroy Seco River (a tributary of the Salinas River), and projects that protect and improve groundwater quality. The long-term priorities include meeting future water demands, establishing steelhead upstream of the Arroyo Seco River, continuing efforts to improve groundwater quality, and implementing watershed management, Projects are selected based on their ability to address these regional priorities. The projects selected are the Salinas Valley Water Project, Water Quality and Fish Habitat Monitoring Program, MCWD Well 33 Pump Station and Reservoir Project, and Soledad Water recycling/Reclamation Project. These projects are then prioritized based on the earliest implementation timeline and the project impacts and benefits. Furthermore, the projects must undergo a technical analysis, a plan performance review, discuss parties responsible for data management, and secure sources of financing. Finally, the projects are analyzed for how well they meet statewide priorities and local planning and the presence of adequate stakeholder involvement.
5.0 Salinas River Parkway Conserva on Plan The most recent management plan to be introduced on behalf of the Salinas River Watershed is the Salinas River Parkway Plan’s Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP) Implementation Plan. Revised in February 2011, the IWMP is the City of Paso Robles’ response to findings in the Salinas River Watershed Management Action Plan and the Upper Salinas River Watershed Action Plan. The basis of the plan is the River Parkway Grant, which enabled the acquisition of 153.9 acres of land, including 1.5 miles of river channel frontage. The purpose of the grant “is to protect, restore and enhance the water quality, riparian habitat, flood control, and groundwater recharge values of property along the Upper Salinas River”.
The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County aidedthe city in the Salinas River Parkway Preserve project by preparing the “SRPP Land Management Plan” (Management Plan) for the long-term stewardship of the land. Together these plans aim to increase the area of native riparian vegetation, reduce sediment infiltration, and reduce urban pollutants contaminating the river and surrounding lands. The plans also aim to increase public awareness and education about the Salinas River and watershed. The annual Festival of the Arts, first held in 2009, has succeeded in increasing awareness of the restoration project as well as to raise matching funds for the grant.
An important element of the IWMP is that it has encouraged the partnering of interests on the SRPP bringing together the Upper Salinas – Las Tablas Resource Conservation District (US-LTRCD), the California Conservation Corps, as well as community volunteers and non-profits with the City of Paso Robles. It has laid out purchase agreements and restoration plans for the 1.5-mile reach and has made continued progress since the plan’s initiation. By May 19, 2010 the City succeeded in purchasing the 153.9 acres of land that now form the parkway corridor and on June 10, 2010 the Management Plan was adopted by the City. Although the acquisition of land was at times challenging and belabored, the restoration phase of the project has been progressing rapidly through cooperative efforts.
The SRPP has been very successful since its introduction. To date numerous goals have been met by efforts of the plan including: mapping and evaluation of site conditions, completion of CEQA documentation, increased public education and involvement, increased riparian vegetation, reduction of uncontrolled vehicle access, increased channel bank stabilization and vegetation, sediment inflow reduction, and pollutant reduction (City). Public outreach events have also commenced including: an annual creek clean-up day, volunteer recruitment and training, the engagement of Liberty High School in hands on learning, and a 3-day course on water quality.
This project has not been without its struggles, fortunately, lessons have been laid out as part of the final IWMP report that may serve as a guide to future endeavors. Major recommendations found in these lessons include cooperation and the designation of clear goals and their timeline for completion. Much as the Action Plan and WAP have previously suggested, communication and partnership are keys to managing such a complex and sensitive project. However, the IWMP has been far more successful than the former in laying out tangible goals and methods for solving them. For this reason, the Salinas River Parkway Plan is an excellent stepping-stone for future restoration projects along the length of the Salinas River Watershed. As noted at the end of the final report, public outreach and support was key to the success of the project and has stimulated community pride and interest in local water resources and work is ongoing.
6.0 Conclusion Multiple management plans have been written in response to the Trust for Public Lands description of the Salinas River Watershed as “the most degraded by human activities”. Since the Action Plan was published in 1999 a steady evolution can be seen in both the approach and results achieved by successive management plans. The Salinas River Parkway Plan has taken great strides along the 1.5-mile stretch the City of Paso Robles is working to restore. With prior plans as a guide, continued efforts should be made to expand the restoration work in the watershed through cooperative efforts and clear goals. Works Cited
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. “Salinas River Watershed Management Action Plan.” San Luis Obispo: October 1999.
Upper Salinas-Las Tablas Resource Conservation District. “Upper Salinas River Watershed Action Plan.” Templeton: June 2004.
City of Paso Robles. “2005-2006 Consolidated Grants – Proposition 40: Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP) Implementation.” Salinas River Parkway Grant Final Report. Paso Robles: December 2010.
The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. “The Salinas River Parkway Management Plan for Triple P LLC Property Acquisition.” Paso Robles: June 2010.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency. “Salinas Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Functionally Equivalent Plan Update.” Monterey County: May 2006. Part V: Key Issues
V.1 Assessment of Headwaters
1.0 Desired Future Condi on: To protect both the health of the ecosystem and human population in the area by enhancing the water quality, riparian habitat, and groundwater recharge capability near the headwaters. We want to ensure that recreation on and near the river, continues in a sustainable way and that the wildlife will thrive in the area.
2.0 Background and Se ng: The Salinas River is the largest river in central California. It spans from the Los Padres National Forest in Southern California, all the way to Monterey Bay. The river is 170 miles long and drains a basin larger than 4,000 square miles. The Salinas River’s reservoirs and tributaries are the main providers of water to farmers in the central valley. In order to enhance and continue use of this resource we must understand and protect its Headwaters.
The head waters of the Salinas River begin in the Garcia Mountain region south of Pozo from the south central part of San Luis Obispo County. The river is fed by several tributaries in this area, consisting of: Nacimiento River, San Antonio River, Huer Huero Creek, and Cholame and San Juan Creek that join together to make the Estrella River. The beginning of the watershed is constrained between the Santa Lucia Range. The Salinas is an unusual river in that is runs north and parallels the San Andres Fault and is sometimes called the Upside Down River. The climatic conditions in the region consist of hot dry summers and cool wet winters with an average annual rainfall measured between 15-50 inches.
Huer Huero Creek Watershed
The Huer Huero Creek Watershed is located in northern San Luis Obispo County and covers an area of about103,000 acres (160 square miles). The Huer Huero creek runs for approximately 27 miles, originating in the La Panza Range in the Los Padres National Forest and into enters into its confluence with the Salinas River. The land within the watershed is comprised primarily of private agricultural lands. The city of Creston is the only major establishment within the Huer Huero creek watershed.
Estrella Creek Watershed
The Estrella River Watershed is located in the eastern San Luis Obispo County and Southeastern Monterey County in near Paso Robles, CA and covers an area of about 640,000 acres (1,000 square miles). The Estrella River forms at the confluence of Cholame Creek and San Juan Creek tributaries and flows for about 28.5 miles into the Salinas River. It originates near the city of Shandon, CA and flows through privately owned agricultural land, mainly vineyards.
Nacimiento River Watershed
The Nacimiento River Watershed is located in Monterey County and covers an area of 236,880 acres (370 square miles). The Nacimiento River flows a total of 64 miles through land used primarily by the military (Camp Roberts) and into the Lake Nacimiento before it reaches the Salinas River. Flows from the lake to the Salinas River are regulated by the Nacimiento Dam.
San Antonio River Watershed
The San Antonio River Watershed is located in Southern Monterey County and covers an area of 220,003 acres (343.8 square miles). It Nacimiento River flows for about 58 miles through the Santa Lucia Mountain Range in the Los Padres National Forest to its confluence with the Salinas River. Lake San Antonio is the major water body that exists between the headwaters and the confluence and water flow to the Salinas is managed by the San Antonio Dam.
Over the past century the upper Salinas Watershed has been significantly degraded. There has been massive habitat loss, removal of riparian vegetation and water quality problems. The water quality has been negatively affected from OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) use, vandalism, trash, illegal dumping, agricultural run-off, and other human uses. This Water Quality degradation has led to decreased riparian vegetation, which has affected wildlife habitat. The river has also been heavily dammed and this has led to a reduction in stream flow which has negatively affected wildlife and fish. The State Water Control Board has designated the Salinas River as one of the most critical watersheds in the State of California. 3.0 Biological resources: The Upper Salinas watershed has several different habitats that are crucial to wildlife in and around the river. However this habitat is very vulnerable to human activity. The numerous dams and water diversion sites for agriculture and urban use greatly take away from the flow of the river and its tributaries and jeopardize the habitat along the river. This water diversion has greatly affected the vegetation along the river and has led to habitat loss.
The main species of concern in the Upper Salinas watershed are the ones that are currently listed on the California Endangered Species act as Endangered or Threatened. There are however other species of concern, mainly fish, that live in the river and tributaries in the Upper Salinas Watershed. Of these species of concern we have broken them into 3 main categories: Invertebrates, Native Fish, and Non-Native Fish. The invertebrates of concern are the Longhorn Fairy Shrimp which is federally listed as endangered and the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp which is federally listed as threatened. Vernal pools are some of the most threatened and degraded habitat in the world and the Salinas Rivers vernal pools are being drained for agricultural use. The Native fish that live in the Upper Salinas Watershed and are of concern are the Sacramento Sucker, the Threespine Stickleback, Hitch, and the Southern Steelhead which is federally listed as threatened. These native fish not only struggle form diminishing habitat but they also have to compete with the many introduced species of fish that have been brought to the Salinas river in order to fish. The last category is the Non-Native fish that have been brought to the Salinas River to please recreational fishers. There is a large list of these species but the main ones of interest are: Sacramento Pikeminow, White Bass, Channel Catfish, Largemouth Bass, Bluegill, Green Sunfish, Redear sunfish, and Black Crappie. These three categories encompass the majority of the biota of the Upper Salinas Watershed. This area is in peril because of habitat loss and water diversion and should be studied in order to create a possible protection plan.
4.0 Issues and Concerns: High nitrate levels are commonly found in the surface waters of the Salinas River. Other issues include siltation, water diversions, migration barriers for salmonids, and high water temperatures. The Salinas Valley experiences large quantities of agricultural production and has thus created multiple problems for the area's natural resources. Rainfall and irrigation produce harmful runoff that carries soils and pesticides into small streams which eventually lead to the main body of the Salinas River and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. Another issue is the clearing of vegetation from stream banks. This practice has degraded habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic species. There is also a problem with bank erosion, which has begun to fill the streams of the headwaters. The degradation of habitat and water quality of the Salinas River has contributed to a decrease in steelhead numbers, and species diversity in general. The river has one dam which was constructed in 1941. It forms Santa Margarita Lake, which is located at 154 miles down the river. An agreement to always keep a “live stream” flowing from the dam has been reached and water is released and regulated from the dam year round.
V.2 Current Water Quality V.3 Lake Nacimiento
V.4 Santa Margarita Lake
1.0 History The Salinas Dam was built in 1941 by the War Department to supply water primarily to Camp San Luis Obispo and, secondarily, to help meet the water requirements of the City of San Luis Obispo. Currently the City of San Luis Obispo has rights to divert up to 45,000 acre feet per year. The Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) captures water from a 112 square mile watershed and can store up to 23,813 acre-feet of water. In 1947, upkeep of the Salinas Dam and delivery system came under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since 1965, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has operated this water supply for the City under a lease from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water from the reservoir is pumped through the one-mile long Cuesta Tunnel and then gravity flows to the City of San Luis Obispo Water Treatment Plant located on Stenner Creek Road.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/03/08/1059445/slo-county-lakes-filling-up.html 2.0 Water quality from the lake Water from Santa Margarita Lake is generally of high quality and within the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, occasional perchloroethylene (PCE) contamination and occasional spikes in the nitrates occur. San Luis Obispo municipal water, which utilizes Santa Margarita Lake as one of it primary sources of water, has a hardness which varies between 200mg/l to 370 mg/l which is moderately hard by industry standards. Salinas Reservoir is considered most vulnerable to contamination from cattle grazing and historic mining activities although no associated contaminants have been detected.
3.0 Species and health Habitats in the near-vicinity of the Santa Margarita Lake include annual grassland, oak woodland and chaparral. Non-native grasses and other herbaceous annuals that are common in this habitat include wild oat, soft chess, foxtail chess, black mustard, sky lupine, and Italian ryegrass. Wildlife species include California ground squirrel, mourning dove, lark sparrow, and savannah sparrow. Oak woodland, dominated by open stands of mature blue oaks and foothill pines is the predominant plant community in the vicinity of the lake. Understory vegetation includes poison oak, toyon, and California buckeye. Common species include include western scrub-), western bluebird, and western fence lizard. Deer, bears, mountain lions, eagles, and osprey are found throughout the area.
http://www.boat-ed.com/nh/course/p4-18_nh_info.htm In the waters of the lake, fish species including bass, stocked trout, catfish, crappie and bluegill are found. Non-native invasive species which are of grave concern to the overall health and water management of the lake include the zebra mussel and the quagga mussel. These mussels are known to colonize water supply pipes of hydroelectric and nuclear power plants, public water supply plants, and industrial facilities thus restricting the water flow. Furthermore, recreational boating can be affected by mussels can getting into engine cooling systems causing overheating and damage. These mussels can also have profound negative effects on the ecosystems they invade.
The upper Salinas River and its tributaries used to be populated with steelhead trout and Chinook salmon; however, due to the Salinas dam being a complete fish barrier, salmon are no longer found in this area and the steelhead population is severely reduced.
4.0 Flow Released into the Salinas River The San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan Update for Water Planning Area #9a- The Salinas River states the following about Santa Margarita Lake, The Salinas Dam, and flows into the Salinas River:
“Licensee’s dam shall be maintained so that the water level in the reservoir can be reduced two feet eight inches below full reservoir level by means of spillway flashboards. On November 1 of each year licensee shall remove spillway flashboards and release into Salinas River any water in storage above the spillway level; and each storage season no water shall be stored above the spillway level until a visible surface flow exists in Salinas River between the licensee’s reservoir and the confluence of Nacimiento River. No water shall be diverted directly to use or to storage under this license at any time water is being released from Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) in compliance with condition 2A of Board Order dated June 1, 1972, or as amended, issued pursuant to applications 10211 and 10216. (App 24365,lic 11158)”
5.0 Recrea on The Santa Margarita Lake is also used for recreation activities such as fishing and boating. The recreation activities are operated by the County of San Luis Obispo as a County Park and the lake allows the public to use the lake for boating, fishing, picnicking, and camping. People cannot enter the lake to swim in or water-ski because it is a domestic water supply reservoir. The lake hosts recreational events throughout the year including bass tournaments and recently, an adventure race: “Central Coast Adventure Challenge.”
Figure__: Santa Margarita Lake Regional Park Trails. Taken from http://www.slopost.org/pdfs/map_SantaMargarita.pdf
5.0.A Issues • Pollution from boaters • Quagga and Zebra Mussels 5.0.B Concerns • Recreation on Santa Margarita Lake helps support Santa Margarita. This includes small businesses such as “Here Fishy Fishy” a small, local, tackle shop that depends on the fishing at Santa Margarita Lake for customers. • Maintaining levels of Santa Margarita Lake to support recreation • Releasing enough water from Santa Margarita Lake to allow Salinas River to flow. Works Cited
“City of San Luis Obispo Utilities.” City of San Luis Obispo. 2005.
“Visit Santa Margarita.com”
“Santa Margarita Lake.” San Luis Obispo County Parks. 2002.
“San Luis Obispo County Master Water Plan.” San Luis Obispo County. 29 March 2007.
1.0 Introduc on The Salinas River has a long and complicated history as both a natural and cultural resource. In recent years, the Salinas River has encountered numerous social, political, economic and ecological difficulties which have affected the ability of various agencies and responsible groups to properly maintain this important resource for current and future generations. In order to protect, restore and enhance and manage the Salinas River in the best interest of the public it is critical to address these various issues and goals. These goals are to enrich the aesthetic value of the Salinas River by increasing opportunities for recreation and education, to restore historic wetlands, where feasible, and to improve water quality by reducing erosion and sedimentation.
An enhancement of the river’s aesthetic value to increase opportunities for recreation, education and outreach would help to return the river and adjacent areas to their original condition as much as possible through restoration. A possible tactic to this goal is to develop hiking trails or upgrade existing trails. The installation of interpretive signs along trails to prevent damage to cultural sites as well as to educate the public on the importance of the surrounding areas would also be an integral part of this enhancement. An additional goal is to restore historical wetlands where possible. The restoration of these once-wetland areas would help to create a buffer zone between the river and adjacent land uses and may serve as a means of flood protection, filtration, and the increased health of riparian ecosystems. Another important goal is to improve water quality by reducing erosion and sedimentation by limiting sand extraction in the river as a whole, or at least in important or sensitive areas.
2.0 The Cultural History of the Salinas River Prior to European settlement, the Salinian and Esseleen tribes were the two dominant tribes which lived in close proximity to the Salinas River and its tributaries. The Salinian Tribe lived in and around the Salinas Valley from Carmel Valley down to Morro Bay. The Salinian language is one of the oldest languages in California, but unfortunately this language has since been lost. These indigenous peoples relied upon the Salinas River as a source of fish and game and additionally relied on native plants for food and medicines. This tribe was later displaced by the arrival of European settlers and there is little current information regarding their history or current existence as cohesive indigenous nation (4).
Although not on friendly terms with the Salinians, the Esseleen Tribe lived nearby in the upper Carmel Valley, both within the Ventana Wilderness and portions of the Los Padres National Forest. They occupied approximately six-hundred and twenty-five square miles along the Arroyo-Seco River, the only undammed tributary to the Salinas, and the Big Sur Coastline. Based on baptism records from Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, the approximate size of the tribe is believed to be one-thousand people. They relied heavily upon the Pacific Ocean for harvesting fish, abalone, mussels and seals. They were also avid traders and bartered acorns, fish, salt, baskets, hides, pelts, shells and beads. Rock art has also been left behind in many of the areas these peoples once inhabited. Around 1770, Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo was established in Carmel and absorbed much of the Esseleen population. Esseleen peoples were taken and trained to work as cattle herders, carpenters, shepherds or blacksmiths. Many died from European diseases like small pox, measles or syphilis or from overwork or malnourishment. Despite their unfortunate past, the Esseleen tribe is still in existence today and, as of 2010, is petitioning the Federal Government for official recognition as a tribe.
3.0 Current and Historical Land Uses In addition to a long cultural history, the Salinas River has long been connected with agriculture. Irrigated agriculture along the Salinas River began as early as the 1790s with the establishment of Spanish Missions (6). Lots and grants were administered Spanish civilians or retired soldiers in the thousands of acres. Today, agriculture is one of the primary land uses along the Salinas River and discharge from current livestock or growing operations along or near the river has been and continues to be a source of concern in regards to water quality. Mineral extraction, in the form of both Oil and Gas operations and sand mining, has also been important land uses near the Salinas River. The Salinas Rivers runs through the San Ardo Oil Field in the upper Salinas Valley, north of Paso Robles. This field is primarily operated by Chevron and Aera Energy LLC. Sand mining has also had a significant impact on the Salinas River as it contributes to erosion, threatens the aesthetic and recreation values of the river, threatens habitat and wildlife and has the potential to alter the overall structure of the Salinas River. Eight million cubic yard of sand and sediment are removed annually from the California coastline annually. The Salinas River is also used as a source of recreation through the limited public use of hiking and some hunting activities. The river also provides habitat for a wide variety of species, including several listed species such as the Snowy Plover, Smith’s Blue Butterfly, the Monterey Spineflower and the Brown Pelican within the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, 2002).
4.0 Areas of Archeological Interest and Poten al Mi ga on Measures As part of a general desire to preserve and restore the integrity of the Salinas River as a whole, identifying historical treasured cultural sites is an integral factor in preventing any disturbances from private development or other activities. There are numerous organizations, agencies and private citizens who have a vested interest in these areas adjacent to the Salinas River. As a result, coordination between these various stakeholders is of the utmost importance to enhancing the beauty and historical integrity of the river. In theory, collaboration between these various groups will help in restoring the river to its original condition, in addition to ensuring the success of municipal and county leader in incorporating the needs of the public, as well as indigenous peoples, in their long term plans.
There are currently fifty-one archeological sites on the Central California Coast between San Mateo and San Luis Obispo Counties, in addition to several archeological significant sites within the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. A World War II era bomb shelter located within the Wildlife Refuge may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, shell middens along the river may also be of archeological interest. The maintenance and preservation of fish habitat may also be important to maintaining the integrity of indigenous peoples’ spiritual connection to the river.
Despite the fact that over fifty cultural surveys have been completed along the Salinas River, a comprehensive understanding of the spiritual significance of specific sites and the river as whole would require an investigation and surveying. Without a specific knowledge of the area, creating a plan to meet the needs of both the public and the indigenous peoples would be ineffective. The specific location of various burial sites along tributaries such as Pancho Rico and Sargent Creeks in South County, and Chualar and Gabilan Creeks in the northern portion of the valley would be essential before any preservation or enhancement measures could be implemented (5). Upon completion of a comprehensive survey of these sensitive areas, the installation of trails within a buffered region away from the sacred areas; the construction of interpretive signs would greatly improve public understanding and respect for these sacred sites.
In order to achieve these objectives of increasing opportunities for recreation and education, to restore historic wetlands, and to improve overall water quality, it is pertinent to gain the cooperation of all stakeholders. Understanding the needs of the indigenous people is vital when developing mitigation strategies to enhance the Salinas River. These people, such as the Salinian and Esseleen, have inhabited this land for centuries, so planners cannot overlook their vested needs and interests in the river. Their cultural significance brings a sense of history and knowledge of the ecological functions of the Salinas River. This understanding is essential for the success of the river for future generations.
Reference List
1. "Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Salinas Valley Water Project." MCWRA Home Page. Web. 02 June 2011. < h t t p : / / www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/SVWP/DEIR_EIS_2001/1.htm>.
2. Gobalet, Kenneth, and Terry Jones. "Prehistoric Native American Fisheries of the Central California Coast." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124.6 (1995): 813-23. Print.
3. "Salinas River Channel." The Otter Project. Web. 31 May 2011. < h t t p : / / www.otterproject.org/site/pp.asp?c=8pIKIYMIG&b=5003031>.
4. "Tribe Petitions for Federal Recognition." Online posting. KSBW Action News 8. 29 Apr. 2003. Web. 31 May 2011.
5. United States. Monterey County. County of Monterey Planning and Building Inspectio Department. 2007. Web. 31 May 2011.
6. United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office. Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. 2002. Web .
VI.1 Coordination with San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties