The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 09-03; Buena Vista Lift Station Sewer Force Main (VC-4); Coastal Development Permit (CDP)PLANNING I SYSTEMS • LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900 POLICY AND PROCESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION F A REPOR B OG CA M G AC VDTHES CO S P 0 TOF E VIS A 0 Prepared! for t e City of Car sbad PubUc Work Department Purchase Order No.~ P1123898 29 July 2013 C E RO EC 1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (7160) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Description of the Rehabilitation Activities 4 3.0 Methods 4 4.0 Results of the Noise Monitoring Surveys 6 5.0 Result of the Biological Monitoring Surveys 7 6.0 Conclusions 8 References 9 Appendix A Maps Final Report for the Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Project is located on the south shore of Buena Vista Lagoon in the Northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, California as shown on the regional map provided in Appendix A. The Buena Vista Lift Station (BL VS), located at the intersection of Lagoon View Drive and Jefferson Street formed the easternmost limit of work and served as the primary equipment storage area and marshaling yard. The intersection of Interstate 5 and Jefferson Street served as the westernmost limit of work. These limits are shown on the Project Area map included in Appendix A. The project involved the addition of a second parallel sewer force main from the BL VS to the junction with an existing 16-inch pipe in the Jefferson Street Overcrossing. The project required the construction of 4,100 linear feet of 24-inch fusible PVC force main, 200 linear feet of new 24-inch DIP force main and rehabilitation of2400 feet of24-inch force main using a cured-in- place pipe-liner (CIPP)(l ). All construction activities were confined to the Jefferson Street right-of-way (ROW) or within the previously developed footprint of the BVLS. This requirement to maintain the construction footprint within the confines of the Jefferson Street ROW was critical given that Buena Vista Lagoon is located immediately adjacent to the Jefferson Street ROW and project work area. The permits issued for this project defined the Area of Potential Effects (APE as extending 500-feet from the construction zone. A map of the APE is provided in Appendix A. Spanish for "good view," Buena Vista Lagoon is a 350-acre freshwater lagoon owned by the State of California and managed as an ecological reserve by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In fact Buena Vista Lagoon is California's first ecological reserve established in 1969. The lagoon is located on the Pacific Flyway and is home to more than 23 5 avian species, 18 mammal species and 14 amphibians and reptile species. Common avian species present in the APE include the white pelican, great blue heron, brown pelican, snowy egret, and a variety of water fowl. 1.1 Overview of the Project Area Buena Vista Lagoon is also an ecological reserve surrounded by urban development and strongly affected by human activities beginning with construction of an overflow dam in the mouth of the lagoon by the Buena Vista Lagoon Association in 1940. The dam washed out in 1969 and was replaced in 1971 effectively conve11ing a saltwater lagoon into a freshwater impoundment of Buena Vista Creek (2). Thus the avifauna found is more typical of a disturbed freshwater marsh rather than a coastal salt marsh. Buena Vista Creek enters the lagoon from the east and for the most pm1 is located outside the Area of Potential Effects. The creek itself supports a number of sensitive riparian species (vermillion flycatcher and least Bell's vireo for example). However, the small reach within the APE is confined to a concrete lined channel and does not suppm1 these protected species. The ecological reserve is tightly bound by transportation infrastructure, commercial development, residential development and municipal infrastructure. The APE is defined by Final Report for th e Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Project Interstate 5 on the west, State Road 78 on the north and Jefferson Road to the South and east. Residential development is located west oflnterstate 5 and south of Jefferson Road. Commercial development (two regional malls) is located north of State Road 78 and east of Jefferson Road. In general the majority of the proj ect area is impacted by traffic noise, often in excess of 65 dB(A). The wildlife that occupies the habitat within the APE is therefore pre-selected to be noise tolerant species 1.2 Habitat Types Present Within the Area of Potential Effect Platming Systems biologists identified three wetland and four upland habitat types within the APE. Since all construction activity was confined to the existing road right-of-way direct impacts to habitat were not anticipated. However, habitat type does dictate what sensitive avian resources are likely to be present in the APE and thus potentially indirectly impacted by the project. Based on the habitat types present the greatest potential for indirect impacts existed to water fowl , wading shore birds, plunge-diving birds and to a lesser extent raptors. Table 1 -Habitat Types in the Area of Potential Effects Habitat Type Status Wetlands: Freshwater Marsh CEQA/NEPAIHMP sensitive resource Sand Flats CEQA/NEPAIHMP sensitive resource Mud Flats CEQA/NEPAIHMP sensitive resource Uplands: Eucalyptus woodland Limited HMP protection Non-native grasslands HMP protected resource Developed lands Not protected Disturbed lands Not protected Ornamental Vegetation Not protected CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act, NEPA-National Environmental Quality Act and HMP -Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan 1.3 Potential Avian Resources with the Area of Potential Effect Prior to initiation of the monitoring activity Planning Systems biologists queried the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) to determine which state and federal listed species have been reported in the Oceanside and San Luis Rey U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles. The biologist conducted an initial survey of the APE to determine ifthese species were present or likely to be present. Table 2 on the following page shows the results of the CNDDB query and the results of the preliminary survey. The table below identifies the species listed in the CNDDB and repmis the results of onsite surveys for those species. Table 2 -Sensitive Avian Species Possibly in Area of Potential Effects Species Status Light-footed clapper rail US/CA Endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher US/CA Endangered Coastal California gnatcatcher US Threatened Least Bells' vireo US/CA Endangered Final Repoti for the Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Project 2 Western snowy plover US Threatened California least tern US/CA Endangered Belding savannah sparrow CA Endangered California brown pelican · CA Fully Protected Double-crested cormorant Am . Bird Consv. Watch List Great blue heron Migratory Bird Treaty Act Snowy egret Migratory Bird Treat Act White-tailed kite CA Fu lly Protected Northern harrier CA Species of Special Concern Swainson's hawk CA Threatened California gull Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Elegant tern Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Coastal cactus wren CA Species of Special Concern Least bittern CA Species of Special Concern White-faced ibi s Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Sharp-shinned hawk Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Burrowing owl CA Species of Special Concern California horned lark Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Clark's marsh wren CA Species of Special Concern Yellow warbler CA Species of Special Concern Yellow-breasted chat CA Species of Special Co ncern So .Ca. rufous-crowned sparrow Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Observed· Not in CNDDB American white pelican CA Species of Special Concern Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1.4 Description of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Conditions of Approval for this project required monitoring of an area extending 500-feet from the limits of construction to determine if any protected avian species were nesting with this perimeter. This project did not involve direct take of habitat but rather posed the risk of noise associated indirect impacts that could disrupt breeding and nesting activities. The project was conditioned to limit noise levels to less than 60 dB(A) measured as a 60-minute time-weighted average (Leq). If noise levels exceeded this standard and nesting birds were located within 500- feet of the construction area then mitigation measures would be required to reduce the noise levels to < 60 dB( A). In addition if the avian species showed obvious signs of distress mitigation measures could be implemented. The Conditions of Approval for this project stipulated the following mitigation measures to reduce any project associated impacts to less than significant levels. Table 3 -Mitigation Measures M itigation Measure Description Schedule Bird Nesting Season Prohibition Limitation on clearing, grubbing and noise 1 Mar. through 15 Aug . Biolog ical Monitor Requ ired Identifi cation of sensitive resource Entire project Noise Monitoring Requ ired Lim itation on duration of work and use of Entire Project sound barriers to limit noise projection. Post Construction Report Summary of im pacts and corrective action Upon project requ ired during project implementation completion Final Report for the Buena Vi sta Force Main Rehabilitation Project 3 1.5 Objective of the Monitoring Activities The overall obj ective of the environmental monitoring program was to assure that project related impacts remained at less than significant levels tlu·ough implementation of specific mitigation measures. In order to accomplish tllis obj ective the environmental monitor: • Conduct surveys of habitat adjacent to the work area to identify the presence of nesting birds and the progress of their reproductive activities. • Conduct noise level surveys to determine if significant levels of noise are being projected into the adjacent habitat. • Monitor the use of hazardous materials, f-uels, oils and lubricants to assure proper containment and to prevent release into the environment. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE REHABILITATION ACTIVITIES The objective of the project was to install a second parallel sewer force main from the BL VS to the junction with an existing pipeline located at Jefferson Street Overcrossing. The primary construction activities associated with the project included: 1. Cutting and removal of asphalt paving 2. Excavation of subsurface to a depth ofbetween 10 and 15 feet 3. Fusing of PVC pipes and subsurface installation of the pipeline 4. Connection to the Buena Vista Lift Station 5. Installation ofthe cast-in-place pipe liner 6. Backfill of the pipeline 7. Repaving of the project footprint Completion of this project required the use of a variety of heavy construction equipment during different phases of the construction. The project monitor collected noise-level data for each equipment type to identify which pieces of equipment represented the greatest potential to impact the adjacent habitat. 3.0 METHODS Platming Systems was notified during the second week of February 2012 that work on the BVLS project would be started during the third week of February. Planning Systems biologists conducted avian surveys and noise monitoring surveys in support of this project. Between 3 and 12 February 2012 Plamling Systems biologists surveyed on foot the entire pipeline right-of-way (ROW), proposed equipment lie-down areas and adjacent areas within 500-feet of the proposed construction envelope for the presence of ground and arboreal nesting birds and endangered species. The majority of the north side of the APE consists ofthe mud-flats and open water of Buena Vista Lagoon. On water monitoring was outside of the scope of this effort. The perimeter of the water surface and near shore was monitored from multiple land based observation spots around the perimeter of the lagoon. Final Report for the Buena Vi sta Force Main Rehabilitation Project 4 Upon completion of the clearance surveys, the Planning Systems biological monitor informed the City of Carlsbad Construction Inspector that no protected species were nesting in the area of potential effects (APE) and therefore construction could proceed. Focused surveys for the California gnatcatcher were not co nsidered necessary as coastal sage scrub habitat was not present in the APE. In the absence of known nesting birds, the monitor looked for indicators of disturbed avian behavior. Such indicators included startle reactions exhibited as birds fl eeing the area in response to the onset of noise, the cessation of bird songs or calls after onset of the noise making activity and/or the failure of the calls to resume after the noise making activity ceases. In addition the monitor visited the site on several weekends to observe non-disturbed avian behavior in and adjacent to the APE. The monitor was thus able to compare avian activity in the APE in the presence of construction activity and in the absence of construction activity. Based on the number of birds observed and the level of call activity it did not appear that general avian behavior was significantly different during periods of construction activity as compared to periods of non-activity. Construction within the APE started on 13 February 2012. Once construction started the Plmming Systems biologist visited the site twice per week or upon the initiation of any new noise causing construction activity. The objective of these visits was to continue the avian surveys and to look for signs of nesting behavior and to assure that noise levels associated with the construction activities did not exceed 60 dB A as a time-weighted average. If noise levels were above 60 dBA the monitor conducted biological surveys to determine if the noise was having an adverse effect on wildlife and to determine if work duration limitations were required for mitigation. The Planning Systems biologist collected noise data as 60-minute time weighted averages during periods of prolonged noise emissions. Noise levels of >60 dB(A) would trigger implementation of noise reduction measures if nesting birds or endangered species of birds were detected within 500-feet of the projects perimeter. Relocation of work or placement of temporary noise barriers also provided a useful way to reduce noise generated into the habitat. Planning Systems also collected spot sound levels adjacent to each piece of equipment used on the project to determine which equipment and which activities generated the highest noise levels. These data allowed the monitor to predict which activities would pose the greatest potential impact and allow the monitor to closely observe the portion of the APE most likely to be affected. Typically noise monitoring is only required if nesting birds are observed in the APE. If as in this case, nesting birds are not present or not detected, noise monitoring is ordinarily not required. However, given the access constraints posed by open water and adjacent private propetty the monitor deemed it prudent to conduct routine noise monitoring to determine if noise levels were in excess of 60 dB( A) and at what distance from the noise source. Final Report for the Buena Vista Force Main Re habilitat ion Project 5 4.0 RESULTS OF THE NOISE MONITORING SURVEYS Noise level data were collected from each type of equipment onsite to determine which type of equipment represented the loudest noise source. The data are summarized on the table below along with sound level decay data as a function of distance from the source. Table 4 · Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Type Noise Level Noise Level Noise Level Noise Level Adjacent At 25ft. At 50 feet At 100 feet (dB(A) (dB(A) (dB(A) dB(A) Ambient Adjacent to 1-5 65-70 65 60 54 Boiler Un it for liner 82 76 70 60@ 300ft. Compactor (Manual) 83 76 70 60@ 200ft. Compacting rol ler 78-8 1 76 70 60 Concrete Cutting -idle 82 75 69 61 Concrete Cutting -operating 101 95 89 60@ 300ft Curb & gutter casting machine 70-73 68 61 55 Electric Jack hammer 85-87 76 72 60@ 225ft End-dump truck -idle 71 68 62 58 Front-end loader 77-79 73 67 60 Generator (small portable) 70-75 68 62 58 McElroy Pipe Fuser 75-80 76 71 60-61 @ 200ft. Pavement Grinding 75 71 69 60 Power Unit for liner 79 68 61 58 Road-Tee Surface Grinder 80-85 76 70 62 dB(A) @ 200ft. Sheep's-foot ro ller 75 71 69 61 Utility Truck 72 68 62 58 Vacuum Truck 68 65 62 59 As can be seen from the data in the table above several pieces of equipment were capable of projected high levels of noise considerable distances. Small sources like portable generators could be effectively shielded from the environmental by using trucks or other equipment as noise screens. Large pieces of equipment such as the boiler unit for the cast-in-place liner were more difficult to screen. However under normal operating conditions most of the equipment described above operates between 30 and 45 minutes per hour which effectively lowers the time-weighted average. The avifauna in the APE did not appear affected by project noise. They remained in the proj ect area during most activities and only infrequently startled with the onset of loud sudden noises. Prolonged construction noise did not seem to force the avifauna from the area. In fact a snowy- egret was observed perched on a traffic sign observing the operation and white-pelicans were observed to actively swim towards the noise source. Given these observations and findings it was not necessary to restrict the duration of construction activities to protect avifauna. The monitor did suggest temporary barrier measures and equipment relocation to reduce noises impacts to the greatest extent possible. Final Report for the Buena Vista Force Ma in Rehabi litation Project 6 5.0 RESULTS OF THE BIOLOGICAL MONITORING SURVEYS Planning Systems biologist performed initial clearance surveys to determine if there were any avifauna present in the APE that would be protected by the ESA and MBT A. The results of these clearance surveys showed that no protected species were present in the area of potential effects (APE) and thus the monitor allowed construction to proceed. During the course of the construction activities Plmming Systems biologists conducted routine avian surveys of the APE with special attention focused on identification of state and federal listed species, species protected under the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and species listed in the California Natural Diversity Database. No protected species were observed within or adjacent to the 500-foot Area of Potential Effect specified for monitoring under the requirements of the Carlsbad HMP. Surveys were conducted between 15 February and 31 August 201 2. T able 5 -Pre sence/A bsence of Sensitive Avian Species in Area of Pote ntial Effe cts Species Status Comment Light-footed clapper rail US/CA Endangered Present-Possible single call in NE corner of west basin. No evidence of nesting behavior Southwestern willow flycatcher US/CA Endangered Not observed -No riparian woodland or willow thicket habitat present in survey area. Coastal California gnatcatcher US Threatened Not observed -No coastal sage scrub habitat present in the survey area. Least Bells' vireo US/CA Endangered Not observed -No riparian woodland or willow thicket habitat present in survey area. Western snowy plover US Threatened Not observed -Only suitable sand flats are outside the survey area. California least tern US/CA Endangered Not observed -Not reported to nest in lagoon. Belding savannah sparrow CA Endangered Not observed -No pickleweed flats in survey area California brown pelican CA Fully Protected Present -No sign of breeding activity. Does not breed in San Diego county Double-crested cormorant Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Not observed Great blue heron Migratory Bird Treaty Act Not observed in lagoon or adjacent eucalyptus woodland Snowy egret Migratory Bird Treat Act Present -Did not exhibit nesting behavior White-tailed kite CA Fully Protected Transient overflight -Did not exhibit nesting behavior Northern harrier CA Species of Special Concern Occasional overflight -Did not exhibit nesting behavior Swainson's hawk CA Threatened Not observed California gull Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Present -Did not exhibit nesting behavior Elegant tern Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Present -Seen in-flight. Coastal cactu s wren CA Species of Special Concern Not observed -Due to absence of suitable habitat Least bittern CA Species of Special Concern Not observed White-faced ibis Am. Bird Consv. Watch Li st Not observed Sharp-shinned hawk Am. Bird Consv. Watch Li st Present -Single observation in tree adjacent to th e pump station . Did not exhibit nesting behavior Burrowing owl CA Species of Special Concern Not observed Ca lifornia horned lark Am. Bird Consv. Watch Li st Occasional observation-Did not exhibit nesting behavior Clark's marsh wren CA Species of Special Concern Single observation on North side of lagoon Ftnal Report for the Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Project 7 Yellow warbler CA Species of Special Concern Not observed -No riparian woodland present in survey area Yellow-breasted chat CA Species of Special Concern Not observed -No riparian woodland present in survey area So.Ca. rufous-crowned sparrow Am. Bird Consv. Watch List Not observed -No coastal sage scrub habitat in survey area Cooper's Hawk CA Species of Special Concern Present -Perched in tree above BVLS Observed · Not in CNDDB American white pelican CA Species of Special Concern Present for 2-3 weeks. Does not nest in San MiQratory Bird Treaty Act Diego County In addition, the monitor observed all avian species for signs of nesting behavior that might qualify the species for protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Typical nesting behavior includes courting behavior, collection and presentation of nest materials, repeated return to the same location, and exchange of nesting responsibility. These behaviors were not observed. The birds in the study area foraged and roosted consistently tlu·oughout the area throughout the construction period. On several occasions it was noted that some species appeared attracted by the construction activity. Specifically a snowy-egret perched on a road sign on Jefferson during excavation activities and on several occasions American white pelicans were observed foraging towards the construction activity. It should be noted that while the APE does include significant acreage of freshwater marsh, much of the remaining habitat along the margin and upland of the lagoon consists on non-native eucalyptus woodland and ornamental or landscape vegetation. These types of habitat are not widely used by sensitive avian resources. Much of the APE is noise impacted by Interstate 5, California Route 78 and Jefferson Street which reduces its value as nesting habitat. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS The Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Project was accomplished without significant impacts to the avifauna within the APE. The avifauna observed did not appear adversely affected by noise. The avifauna in the APE exhibited the same behaviors regardless of the level of construction activity in the vicinity. Two sensitive species seem attracted to the construction noise (snowy egret and white pelican) and one species (Cooper's hawk) was undisturbed by the presence of construction immediately below its perch. As indicated previously, avian resources in the APE are habituated to noise given the proximity of the surrounding freeways and roads. It is possible that the closure of Jefferson A venue resulted in an overall decrease in traffic related noise and provided an indirect benefit to the avifauna ofthe APE. Fina l Report for the Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Proj ect 8 REFERENCES 1. Buena Vista Lift Station Force Main (VC-4) Contract No. 55081 , bid No. PWS11 - 43UTIL Book 1 of2 August 2010. 2. Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation http://buenavistalagoon.org/projects.html#statepark 3. City of Carlsbad http://www.carlsbadca.gov/about/visitorinfo/Pages/buena-vista.aspx 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad, CANov 2004. Final Report for the Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Project 9 Appendix A -Maps Final Report for the Buena Vista Force Main Rehabilitation Project 10 ·~· ........ ·•·u t .;,. , I 4 ..._~ '"If'•· 1' !1, ' .. ... ,. ' . ~ ., ~ I Vllt • ~ j •• .. , .. 1 I I ~- 1· .1-' r.t.-1 I I '' SOURCE: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, 20 13 FIGURE 1 Vicinity Ma JEFFERSON ST. -MARRON RD. SEWER PROJECT Carlsbad, California .·.,. q NORTH 1250 2500 SCALE: 1" = 2500' PLANNING SYSTEMS 5000 FT ..... , .................... . ............. '·' ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·: ·: ·: ·: ·:-: ·:-: · ~:lJ.E.fli_A. ·l(i;5f A:·:·:·:-:-:·:·:· : -: · :-.'. · _-:. ·::: ::. ·. ·f;A\390N·. ·:::. · .. _. ::. ·. ·: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ........................ . FIGURE 2 •••••••••••••••• 0 •••••••• ' ••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 •••••••••• :: _-_-... ·::. · .. :::: BUENAVI.S.TA.·:. ·. · .' _-. ·. · _-.':. ·. ·. ·. · _-: .. ." .". ·:. ·_-: ." :. · .. ." .. .". ·."1..:/.iGOON' ... · .'. ·. · ." .' .'. ·. ·:. ·. · .. _. .' .................... '.............. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YOURELL AVE l5 8 I a: Buena Vista Force Main Project Area JEFFERSON ST. -MARRON RD. SEWER PROJECT Carlsbad, California PROJECT AREA PLAZA CAMINO Sl-IOPPING CENTER BUENA VISTA LIFT STATION sa NORTH NOT TO SCALE July 29, 2013 r~~~~~~ • •-11 300 600 1200 FT EB orce Main Limits of Work otential Effects SCALE,1"=Goo· NORTt·l July 29. 2013 JEFFERSON ST.-MARRON RD. SEWER PROJECT Carlsbad, California II ~~~~~ I ••II