The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEIA 11-03; Calavera Dam Long Term Maintenance; _N/A. ' f~ '·~ .4. ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION P-1 • Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue {760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) Development Permits D Administrative Permit D Coastal Development Permit (*) D Minor D Conditional Use Permit (*) D Minor D Extension [] Environmental Impact Assessment D Habitat Management Permit D Hillside Development Permit (*) D Planned Development Permit D Minor D Residential D Non-Residential D Planned Industrial Permit D Planning Commission Determination D Site Development Plan D Special Use Permit D Tentative Tract Map D Variance D Administrative (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) Legislative Permits D General Plan Amendment D Local Coastal Program Amendment (*) D Master Plan 0Amendment £/A J J• 03 D Specific Plan D Amendment D Zone Change (*) D Zone Code Amendment List other applications not specified D D D (*) = eligible for 25% discount (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00P.M. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: \lz?B -CtiJ · 0 \-\~ <EJ -OL( 0 ~ ()'2.___ PROJECT NAME: CN.p._\~ vm Lru~ -ll?t?t1 f>.fd#g]Uf>.t-Hf::.ttvn:Hv""-J-)L.E=" BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: et)(}TJ~ hHrv~~C£ b:?tivJ:rle$, P....l ~~ VN-'1 NJ:P SPLLLU..Jt>-Lf BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOCATION OF PROJECT: pO)t'-c.~ iO '11-:1-1~ ~. ON THE: ~~ SIDE OF (NORTH. SOUTH, EAST, WEST) ~D bR?I0 SPA-oe p~ (910 BETWEEN AND (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) P-1 PaQe 1 of 5 Revised 07/10 OWNER NAME (Print): GrtY OY ~ ~~--~~~------------ MAILING ADDRESS: \'700 ~~ Vi~ \))tL CITY, STATE, ZIP: Cf'1'~ 1 t/'f<. CiZOOb TELEPHONE: EMAIL ADDRESS: I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ~L,CO./t rJ lO! /U.)( f SIGNAT RE DATE '. APPLICANT NAME MAILING ADDRESS: f (0;6 rP<IzADf-<Lf f:.11? CITY, STATE, ZIP: 6Pe\.-'S>Bpq), C/>--Cf'ZDO<o TELEPHONE: =400 · la(/Z. · 2-:f~ EMAIL ADDRESS: <ShLrYi. ------~~~~~~~~~~~v I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. (~tswrt-uD e(1C1/W(( SIGNATURE DATE APPLICANTSREPRESEN~T~E~rinQ: -~~~&~~~~~~~~~~~~C~~~-r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL ADDRESS: I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. INJE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE. NOTICE OF RESTRICTION: PROPERTY OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES AND CONSENTS TO A NOTIC.E OF RESTRICTION BEING RECORDED ON THE TITLE TO HIS PROPERTY IF CONDITIONED FOR THE APPLICANT. NOTICE OF RESTRICTIONS RUN WITH THE LAND AND BIND ANY SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. ~~LDCt.--cN PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY P-1 Page 2 of 5 RECEIVED AUG 1 9 2011 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: Revised 07/10 SCREENING OF EQUIPMENT Exterior components of plumbing, processing, heating, cooling, and ventilation systems (including but not limited to piping, tanks, stacks, collectors, heating, cooling, and ventilating equipment fans, blowers, ductwork, vents, louver, meters, compressors, motors, incinerators, - ovens, etc ... ) shall not be directly visible from a height of five feet from the closest building wall on any lot. Scaled elevations of all such equipment, as well as screening materials, are required on all site plans. See example below. EXAMPLE OF SCREENING MATERIAL DISPLAY PROPERTY LINE n • o---r:. ..... .Jc:: PROPERTY LINE\ 50' LANDSCAPE SETBACK c ....... ;_...,,.. nl', .. n ' . ~~ ·'\~ ~, '· -~ .~ CITY 0 F DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P-1(A) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov CARLSBAD Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. 2. P-1(A) APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 1 0% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person '3f{(;)'2tlt' -1-b.AJPce-D Corp/Part. __________ _ Title ~~-~ ·~tllfr=I'Z-Title. ___________ _ Address l02f7 F~{ kt~ Address. __________ _ C-N<_LSf3/\P J ~/flc-0['1-0-tJ~ OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person 2Hf12{U' I:-\QL1 )NlQ Corp/Part. ___________ _ Title :&:zst\(J'k£3;: ~lbW"L Title. _____________ _ Address \037 Ptxtz-~ WI f><1P Address. ___________ _ ~txf2-l9d?tD. Cfc tl?mtJ Page 1 of 2 Revised 07110 3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to ( 1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust -----------------Title Title _____________ _ Address _________ _ Address ___________ _ 4. Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes f$J No If yes, please indicate person(s): __________ _ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ~~vct:Yu9 Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent P-1(A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 (~ ··.~ ~ .... ' ''9') .'/ CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT NAME: APPLICANT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION P-1(8) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov G(kld\\~ 12b&1 Lo~kt,·JW-n rl~~k\..;JLf j t )-tV Of ~llz~ lJnU-ri6 ~ . Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: P-1 (B) Page 1 of 1 Revised 07110 ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT ASSESSMENT FORM-INITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION) CASENQ: DATE: 1. CASE NAME: Calavera Dam Long-Term AmffiEtJ. Maintenance Project I I I I 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: =C...,_ity.~--o=f:.....::C=ar=l=sb=a.:::..d __________ _ 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: ~Sh~e~m~· ~H~ow~ar~d _________ _ 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Lake Calavera Reservoir Impoundment (Calavera Dam) 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, Utilities Engineering Division 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: =Op=en_,_,S~p=a=ce=--,--_____________ -,-- 7. ZONING:=Op~en~S~p~a~c~e ______________________________________________ __ 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Department ofFish and Game 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECTBACKGRO~ The proposed project is the~oval of vegetation from the upstream, downstream, spillway, intake/outlet structure and associated areas at the Lake Calavera Dam. The project site is located at the southwestern end of Lake Calavera, off Tamarack Avenue in the City of Carlsbad (see Figure 1). It is formed by the compacted earth-flU dam containing rock blankets on both upstream and downstream faces. The decomposed granite base was excavated and the dam and ·spillway structures were completed in 1941. The primary function of the Lake Calavera Reservoir is stormwater retention for flood control. The surface area of the reservoir, when full, is approximately 21 acres. Its maximum storage capacity is approximately 540 acre-feet. The average depth of the reservoir is between 12 to 16 feet and has a maximum water depth of 54 feet. The dam has a height of 67 feet from top of dam to the outfall structure. The parcel encompassing the Lake Calavera Reservoir is owned by the City of Carlsbad (City) and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) operates and maintains the dam. In 2006, the CMWD initiated the Calavera Dam Remedial Improvements Project, which was completed in 2009, to repair the badly neglected dam and appurtenances to comply with the State of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) requirements. That project included repairs to the existing Lake Calavera Reservoir intake/outlet works, to the spillway and access road, to the existing outlet piping using slip-lining methods, and construction of a control building and fencing for improved site security around the dam operations. Vegetation was removed at that time, but has since grown back. Pursuant to DSOD directives, vegetation on the dam and in the spillway should be removed annually, so that it will not reestablish. Responsibility for supervision of dams and reservoirs is assigned to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and delegated to the DSOD. Water Code Sections 6000 to 6004.5 and 6025.5 identify dams and reservoirs that are under State jurisdiction. In matters relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the DWR is typically the lead or responsible agency for dams and reservoirs. According to the e Project Number(s) Calavera Dam Long-Term Annual Maintenance Project current practices of the DSOD (http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/ CurrentPractices.pdf, viewed May 6, 2011) repair and maintenance qualify for an exemption under CEQA. However, because the repair activities involve the removal of sensitive habitat, the City (the CEQA lead agency and the project proponent) will require an Initial Study. The DSOD will be a responsible agency under CEQ A. 2 Rev. 07/06/11 A Project Number(s) Calavera Dam Long-Win Annual Maintenance Project Figure 1: Project Location Map 3 Rev. 07/06/11 e Project Number(s) Calavera Dam Long-Term Annual Maintenance Project PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed project is to respond to a recommendation from the DSOD in a field inspection report dated April, 19,2010, that the following actions be taken: • Remove the small trees located near the downstream end of the spillway channel on the top left side; and • Remove all obscuring vegetation from the upstream and downstream faces of the dam, including the tules on the upstream face. The DSOD field inspection report further explained that the "dense tule growth on the upstream face of the dam made it difficult to conduct a thorough visual inspection and provided an inviting area for rodents andbur:r,owin& .animals~ ~All tulesl?c~tedonthe upstream face of the dam should be removed." (tsj\,~ ~~J:~1':~~¢~:T~~PftQWc;tA;f:l?~p~~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwestern end of Lake Calavera, off Tamarack Avenue in the City of Carlsbad. The project entails removal of vegetative material from the north (lakeside or upstream side) and south (downstream side) faces of the dam, spillway, and outlet structure in response to an order from the DSOD. The proposed project includes 1) current vegetation removal (2011), and 2) ongoing, annual vegetation removal. The vegetation in the immediate and surrounding (within 400 feet from the dam) vicinity is dominated by Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Disturbed Land, Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Nonnative Grassland, Non-native Vegetation, Southern Willow Scrub, Mule Fat Scrub, Coast Live Oak, Riparian Forest, and Open Water. The total area subject to annual vegetation removal maintenance includes approximately 3 acres, 2.8 acres of which has been maintained in the past. Vegetation (including some riparian habitat) would be removed using any or all of the following methods: by hand, application of herbicide, and mechanically (using a Gradall excavator [or equivalent] from the top of the dam). All mechanical equipment and trucks used during maintenance activities would be staged in paved or developed areas on the top of the dam or on the access road where the substrate is either bare ground or paved. No ground disturbance (i.e., grading) is proposed as part of the project. Initial maintenance would include removal of some trees and shrubs as well as low-growing vegetation. The City will conduct maintenance outside .of nesting bird season (i.e., outside of February 15 through September 15). Installation of temporary exclusionary fencing would ensure that the limits of construction are clearly defmed prior to brush-clearing activities and clearly visible to personnel on foot and equipment operators. Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities and vehicles to the proposed project construction areas, approved staging areas, and routes of travel. The lake level would be lowered by approximately 3 feet in order for submerged vegetation to be removed. No permits or permissions are required from the DSOD for the CMWD to perform maintenance (including lowering and raising lake levels as required for maintenance activities). The removed vegetative materials would be mulched in a chipper and hauled away in trucks to an approved disposal facility. It is esti,mated that approximately 5 loads would be necessary. Vegetation removal maintenance activities will occur in perpetuity, annually for a period of approximately 5 days per annual maintenance event. The CEQA Lead Agency is the City of Carlsbad. Permits will be required from the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) for impacts to riparian habitat (pursuant to the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program) and from the City pursuant to the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The CDFG and CMWD will also be responsible agencies under CEQ A. ~:f<! cf>'-l uP \. CO ~ \.;~ ~ ~-~ A -~'-'~ x_'B & (/ ~ -~ ~ cY s~~4 ;~\ Rev. 07/06/11 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------.. . ~ f ... "<\ ..... ':~CITY OF CARLSBAD HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT P-1(C) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov Consultation of Lists of Sites Related to Hazardous Wastes (Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5} Pursuant to State of California Government Code Section 65962.5, I have consulted the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency and hereby certify that (check one): I$J The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. 0 The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application !!! contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. APPLICANT Name: ,~-t\r:u::hZ{) Address: UJ'3:5 ~ttY h~ ~J-b~k::> ~ CtWDb Phone Number: 31t?0 · (iD'Z: ·z.~ PROPERTY OWNER Name: urv Of ~ Address: 1-zw {~ Vf (~~ 1AL_ C&42.L~D1 C b-g:LP21\ Phone Number: __________ _ Address of Site:_---'~=3 ...... ~:.....;!15:&:o:;... __ :tN1.._._Jo....ll,..;kf2:o=;.j'b...._. .._c_r"-. _k\1--"¥-~......._ ____________ _ Local Agency (City and County}:_...lol~..a....::="""~=~::=........:JI"-~-=-~GN0..:;..:.....:...;;·'---'p~Ltt1""-'="-D=-------- Assessor's book, page, and parcel number:_jl~02]f;~· ~~Gt~~&?3:!:::::rc9A.I:___li~la2Jb:J..::~:.f.02L:::IL.f0;L/....:::-:JO~'~"'Z...~-- Y\.()-._. Specify list(s): _________________________________ _ Regulatory Identification Number: __ ~------------------------- Date of List: ___ .:..._::::::::::....'----------------------------------- Applicant Signature/Date Property Owner Signature/Date The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. P-1(C) Page 1 of 2 Revised 07/10 ~ (I TY 0 F , .· ... CARLSBAD'·~ HAZARDOUS WAST AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT P-1(C) ' . 4 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue {760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov Per the California Environmental Protection Agency's website, 'While Government Code Section 65962.5 [referred to as the Cortese List] makes reference to the preparation of a "list," many changes have occurred related to web-based information access since [the amended statute's effective date in] 1992 and this information is now largely available on the Internet sites of the responsible organizations. Those requesting a copy of the Cortese "list" are now referred directly to the appropriate information resources contained on the Internet web sites of the boards or departments that are referenced in the statute." Below is a list of agencies that maintain information regarding hazardous waste and substances sites. Department of Toxic Substances Control www. calepa. ca. gov/sitecleanup/Corteselist/default. htm www.calepa.ca.gov/database/calsites www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public EnviroStor Help Desk (916) 323-3400 State Water Resources Control Board http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Services www.co.san-diego.ca.us/deh Hazardous Materials Division www.sdcounty.ca.gov/deh/hazmat/hazmat permits.html Mailing Address: County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health P.O. Box 129261 San Diego, CA 92112-9261 Call Duty Specialist for technical questions at (619) 338-2231, fax (619) 338-2377 Environmental Protection Agency National Priorities Sites ("Superfund" or "CERCUS") www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites (800) 424-9346 or (702) 284-8214 National Priorities List Sites in the United States www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm P-1(C) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 ,4f~A_ CITY OF ~'CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project EIA 11-03 Southwestern end of the Lake Calavera Reservoir generally located east of Tamarack Avenue, border with Oceanside on the north, open space preserve land on the east and south of the dam. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project entails removal of vegetative material from the north (lakeside or upstream side) and south (downstream side) faces of the dam, spillway, inlet and outlet structure in response to an order from the State of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The project includes initial vegetation removal (to be conducted in 2012) and ongoing, periodic vegetation removal in perpetuity. This ongoing vegetation removal is required in order to comply with DSOD permits for the dam. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [8J Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached Initial Study have been added to the project. 0 The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy ofthe initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: DON NEU City Planner December 13, 2012, pursuant to Administrative Approval · · · .. Planning Division ~~~;----~----------------------------------------------------------s:: · 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® Page 1 of 3 PROJECT NAME: Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project FILE NUMBERS: ___ -=E=IA...:....:...11,_-=03:;..._ _____ _ APPROVAL DATE: ___ --=D=ec=e=m=b=e:.:...r....:..1=3._.2=0:....:..1:.2 ___ _ The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure [BI0-1]. Implementation of construction or clearing of vegetation within the project impact footprint shall occur outside of breeding season (March through September). The USFWS shall be notified at least seven days before clearing and grubbing begins. During construction conducted outside of the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall walk the area directly ahead of construction equipment to flush birds from the area. The biologist shall immediately report to the USFWS the number and location of any federally listed birds disturbed by clearing and grubbing. No gnatcatchers shall be injured or killed. If construction must commence during breeding season, then the City shall have a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds, including raptors, within three days prior to construction. Should nesting birds be detected within 1 00 feet of the project impact footprint, the USFWS shall be notified immediately of any federally listed species that are located during the pre-construction survey. A qualified biologist shall then establish suitable buffer area (at least 300 feet) within which no construction Explanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Type BIOLOGY Project Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column INill be initialed and dated. Monitoring Department Planning I Engineering Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column INill be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-Appendix P. Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Page 2 of 3 Mitigation Measure activity may take place until the nest is no longer active. A qualified biologist shall walk the area directly ahead of construction equipment to flush birds from areas outside of the nesting buffer if construction occurs during nesting season. [810-2]. During the breeding season, construction noise shall be monitored by a City approved noise consultant regularly to maintain a threshold at or below 60 dBA hourly Leq within 300 feet of breeding habitat occupied by listed species. If noise levels supersede the threshold, the construction array shall be changed or noise attenuation measures will be implemented, as recommended in the draft Guidelines for Biological Studies (City of Carlsbad 2008). [810-3]. The City will be responsible for obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG for impacts to CDFG jurisdictional habitat. Exact acreages of mitigation are to be determined by CDFG during the permit approval process. o The City will be responsible for providing mitigation for permanent impacts to 0.18 acre offreshwater marsh at a 1:1 (0.18 acre) or 2:1 ratio (0.36 acre) pursuant to requirements of the HMP. The mitigation ratio requirement varies based on type of replacement habitat. o The City will be responsible for providing mitigation for permanent impacts to 0.10 acre of southern willow scrub at a 1:1 (0.1 0 acre) or 2:1 ratio (0.20 acre) pursuant to Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Tvoe Project Project Monitoring Dept.= Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Monitoring Deoartment Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-Appendix P. Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks p 3 f3 age 0 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type requirements of the HMP. The mitigation ratio reguirement varies based on t~~e of re~lacement habitat. 0 Habitat restoration or creation will be ~erformed to meet the Citv's HMP reguirements for im~acts to wetlands and ri~arian scrub. Creation or restoration shall occur under the direction of a ~rofessional biologist, shall be subject to monitoring, and shall be subject to the a~~roval of the CDFG through the regulatorY ~ermitting ~recess. Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept= Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans =When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Monitoring Department Verified Implementation= When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD-Appendix P. Shown on Verified Remarks Plans Implementation ' 4>tate of' California-The Resources A. OEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARl! LEAD AGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION COUNTY/STATEAGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO PROJECT TITLE RECEIPT# SD2012 1030 STATE CLEARING HOUSE#!IIapplicable) 2012081058 DATE 12/18/2012 DOCUMENT NUMBER *20120248* CALAVERA DAM ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PROJECT-MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT APPLICANT NAME CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS 1635 FARADAY AVENUE PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): CITY CARLSBAD III Local Public Agency 0 School District 0 Other Special District CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: 0 Environmental Impact Report l2l Negative Declaration 0 Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) 0 Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs l2l County Administrative Fee 0 Project that is exempt from fees 0 Notice of Exemption 0 DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) 0 Other------------------ PAYMENT METHOD: 0 Cash 0 Credit 12) Check 0 Other_2_38_4_5_3 __ _ SIGNATURE V. Orendain X CITY OF CARLSBAD .. ,, / PHONE NUMBER 760/602-2756 STATE ZIPCODE CA 92008 0 State Agency 0 Private Entity $2,919.00 $ $2,101.50 $ $2,101.50 $850.00 $ $992.50 $ $50.00 $ $50.00 L; ~ $ TOTAL RECEIVED $ $2,151.50 I TITLE Deputy '----.. --·-------------------i-----jAN-2-5·1frt3 ···--·-1···-· _____ .. _____ .. ____ ................ ______________ .. ________________________________ ................ -... _, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ORIGINAL-PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-DFG/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY -COUNTY CLERK FG 753.5a (Rev. 7/08) . ,· ·, • Notice of Determination To: Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue SD County Clerk Attn: Jennifer Samuela Mail Stop A-33 IF ~ l E [J) Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ernest J Oronenburg, Jr. RiCOrdtr County CIJ7 60) 602-4600 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92101 DEC 1 fi.Z U 12 V. orendain BY---""""=.,..,--......, ,-} ,"'; - l \) ~,· .' ;·+ ;.~ DEPUTY Project No: EIA 11-03 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project-Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Title 2012081058 City of Carlsbad, Barbara Kennedy (760) 602-4626 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number East ofTamarack Avenue, south of Sky Haven Lane, City ofCarlsbad, San Diego County Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: Sherri Howard, Associate Engineering, City of Carlsbad Applicant's Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Applicant's Telephone Number: 760-602-2756 Project Description: The project entails removal of vegetative material from the north (lakeside or upstream side) and south (downstream side) faces of the dam, spillway, inlet and outlet structure in response to an order from the State of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The project includes initial vegetation removal (to be conducted in 20 12) and ongoing, periodic vegetation removal in perpetuity. This ongoing vegetation removal is required in order to comply with the DSOD permits for the dam. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad City Planner has approved the above described project on December 13, 2012, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. I. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. D An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. 1:8] A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. D This project was reviewed previously and a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQ A. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. 6. ,,(' Find}ngs were made pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. T 1 is to certify that the final Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record o pr ~ec is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. /2-/3-!t Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 04/ 12 ·· "' · "'· •( "~~ ··'" . "'" ·'~ r ('' ,~l''''V""I.EOV • •. \ · .... :.: • ·· .-:~ · '"'!!;:-., ;l.,.",' r \,.". "" DEC 18 2012 j (~ •• t' . ,; ·-··-·-····· '"·-~~"'-<~--·-··-··-·----.. ··--·--·-......... ., •. ,__,.,~. ·"--·---,. D ECJ 8 2012 1 A.tL~ 7 J,~~~-- 'AN ', 7 7CP .... --·-·-.. ---... 1.. -:.....L.s.._;:_"~-···-... _ . V. . ..Olenda;n .. --,--~ --· fnJ11L£'b I~{IJ/ j I~ e Notice of Determination o FILE To: Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 SD County Clerk Attn: Jennifer Samuela Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92101 From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-4600 Project No: EIA 11-03 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project-Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Title 2012081058 City of Carlsbad, Barbara Kennedy (760) 602-4626 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number East of Tamarack A venue, south of Sky Haven Lane, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: Sherri Howard, Associate Engineering, City of Carlsbad Applicant's Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Applicant's Telephone Number: 760-602-2756 Project Description: The project entails removal of vegetative material from the north (lakeside or upstream side) and south (downstream side) faces of the dam, spillway, inlet and outlet structure in response to an order from the State of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The project includes initial vegetation removal (to be conducted in 2012) and ongoing, periodic vegetation removal in perpetuity. This ongoing vegetation removal is required in order to comply with the DSOD permits for the dam. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad City Planner has approved the above described project on December 13, 2012, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. 0 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. ~ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. 0 This project was reviewed previously and a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition ofthe approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. is to certify that the final Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record o pr ~ec is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. /2-/3-!t DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 04/12 .... (~CITY OF ~CARLSBAD • w:~ft ~D ·~~~.; ~='*rCOUII~ Cll!k AUO 2 2 2UI2 BY H. Ayuyao Community & Economic Develo-pm-ent i.:•..-•••••••..-r• DEPUTY www.carlsbadca.gov CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project EIA 11-03 Southwestern end of the Lake Calavera Reservoir generally located east of Tamarack Avenue, border with Oceanside on the north, open space preserve land on the east and south of the dam. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project entails removal of vegetative material from the north (lakeside or upstream side) and south (downstream side) faces of the dam, spillway, inlet and outlet structure in response to an order from the State of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The project includes initial vegetation removal (to be conducted in 2012) and ongoing, periodic vegetation removal in perpetuity. This ongoing vegetation removal is required in order to comply with DSOD permits for the dam. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Planner. AVAILABILITY: A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. The Initial Study is also available on the City's website at www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Pages/agendas- minutes-and-notices.aspx (Look under "Notice of Intent" for a link to "EIA 11-03" COMMENTS: Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in revie~i~g Mitigat~d Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. All comments must be submitted in writing within 30 days to the following City of Carlsbad Contact: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, Carlsbad Planning Division; 1635 Faraday Avenue; Carlsbad, CA 92008 or by email at barbara.kennedy@carlsbadca.gov. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is subject to review and approval by the City Planner. The City Planner's decision is final and effective when a written determination is made. Within ten calendar days of the date that a decision or determination becomes final, any interested party may file a written appeal with the secretary of the Planning Commission. If you have any questions, or if you would like to receive a copy of the written determination, please contact Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4626. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE ·. Planning Division August 23, 2012 through September 24, 2012 August 23, 2012 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 • SITE MAP • I o ... • .l. -' ~ ;\ l f ( ~ -.~ ·tnr~ -· -·· -~--~ ·::·~. . .. . ~ . . . SEP 1 5ZfiA --' " lL..-,, • N ,. 't'• NOT TO SCALE I ;i• S€-R 7:: 5lU12 --,1-()iyu.yao_ __ '_ ~·-·~~' ~~~: Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project EIA 11-03 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE a/PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT EDMUND G. BROWN JR. KEN ALEX DJRECfOR GOVERNOR September 21,2012 ·. '."·~ c~ .. ~~ .. ~~·~i.~:oi Barbara Ke!U1edy City of Carlsbad Plaill1ing Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project-EIA 11-03 SCH#: 2012081058 Dear Barbara Ke!U1edy: , The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on September 20, 2012, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future conespondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 211 04( c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shaii only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be canied out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we reconunend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Siny-¥r~ Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 lOth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov SCH# 2012081058 Project Title Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project -EIA 11-03 Lead Agency Carlsbad, City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The project entails removal of vegetative material from the north (lakeside or upstream side) and south (downstream side) faces of the dam, spillway, inlet and outlet structure in response to an order from the State of CA Division of Safety Dams (DSOD). The project includes initial vegetation removal (to be conducted in 2012) and ongoing, periodic vegetation removal in perpetuity. This ongoing vegetation removal is required in order to comply with the DSOD permits for the dam. Lead Agency Contact Name Agency Phone email Address Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad 760 602 4626 Fax City Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad State CA Zip 92008 Project Location County City Region Lat!Long Cross Streets Parcel No. Township Proximity to: San Diego Carlsbad 33 o 1 0' 11" N I 11 r 17' 1 0" W East of Tamarack Avenue, south of Sky Haven Lane 168-040-02-00 Range Section Highways SR 78 Airports Railways Waterways Schools Land Use McClellan/Palomar NCTD Lake Calavera, Agua Hedionda Lagoon CUSD PLU: OS Preserve Z:OS GPLUD: OS Project Issues Vegetation; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Landuse Base Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Boating and Waterways; Office of Emergency Management Agencies Agency, California; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 11; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 9; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 08/22/2012 Start of Review 08/22/2012 End of Review 09/20/2012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, BOOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 653-6251 Fax (916) 657-5390 Web Site www.nahc.ca.gov ds_nahc@pacbell.net September 17, 2012 Ms. Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 FARADAY Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 e Edmund G Brown Jr Governor R r-ct=~"f~~ ,C ·r--·· I SEP 1 8 2012 \ I (.' l''f' \ STATE CLEI\S\~Or.:·_l'-•~J' . ~~··------·---·. ~--·-· Re: SCH#2012081 058; CEQA Notice of Completion; proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the "Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project;" located in the City of Carlsbad; San Diego County1 California. Dear Ms. Kennedy: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the State of California 'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21 070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3rd 604). This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties or resources of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA-CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments effective 3/18/201 0) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC recommends that the lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the proposed project. The NAHC "Sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code §§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ). Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code§ 5097.95, the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties, including archaeological studies. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Furthermore, the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321-43351). Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.C 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 1 06 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to "research" the cultural landscape that might include the 'area of potential effect.' Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for inadvertent discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery of human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery'. To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies,_ project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. Finally, when Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial sites are prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends 'avoidance' of the site as referenced by CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a). 2 . . If you have any que ions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 653-6 51 . z;ly, ~,___L~ Cc: Attachment: Native American Contact List 3 --· ----· ------------------------------------------------- LJFILE Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal "b . .;}1-1;> Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P. 0. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-(916) 445-0613 See NOTE Below: Project Title: Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project-EIA I 1-03 Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD Contact Person: Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner SCH# Street Address: 1635 FARADAY A VENUE Phone: (760) 602-4626 City: CARLSBAD Zip: 92008 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION~ County: San Diego City/Nearest Community: _C~ar~ls~b~a~d ______________________________________________ __ Cross Streets: East of Tamarack Avenue, south of Sky Haven Lane Total Acres: approx. 3 acres Zip Code: 92010 Lat. I Long.: 33°1Q'll" N/ lJ.l0 ll'lQ" W Assessor's Parcel No. 168-040-02-00 Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: SR 78 Waterways: Lake Calavera, Agua Hedionda Lagoon Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: ----'C""-U~S~D __________________ _ DOCUMENT TYPE: CEQA: D NOP 0 Early Cons 0 Neg Dec 0 Draft EIR LOCAL ACTION TYPE: D General Plan Update D General Plan Amendment D General Plan Element D Community Plan DEVELOPMENT TYPE: D Residential: Units D Ot1ice: Sq. Ft. D Commercial: Sq. Ft. D Industrial: Sq. Ft. D Educational: D Recreational: 0 Supplement/Subsequent 0 EIR (Prior SCI-I No.) [8] Mitigated Neg Nee D Specific Plan 0 Master Plan D Planned Unit Development D Site Plan Acres Acres Employees Acres Employees Acres Employees PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: D Aesthetic/Visual D Flood Plain/Flooding D Agricultural Land D Forest Land/Fire Hazard D Air Quality 0 Geological/Seismic D Archaeological/l-listorical D Minerals 0 Coastal Zone D Noise 0 Drainage/ Absorption 0 Population/1-lsg. Balance D Economic/Jobs 0 Public Services/Facilities D Fiscal D Recreation/Parks NEPA: 0 NOI 0 EA OTHER: 0 Joint Document 0 Final Document D 0 D D D 0 D [8] 0 Draft EIS 0 FONSI 0 Rezone 0 Prezone 0 Use Permit 0 Land Division (Subdivision, Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) D Water Facilities: D Transportation: D Mining: 0 Power: 0 Waste Treatment: 0 Hazardous Water: 0 Other: Schools/Universities Septic Systems Sewer Capacity 0 Other: _______ _ 0 Annexation 0 Redevelopment 0 Coastal Permit 0 Other: ~N'-'-1 A-'------- Type MGD Type Mineral Type Watts Type Type 0 Water Quality 0 H20 Supply/Ground H20 [8] Wetland/Riparian Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading [8] Wildlife Solid Waste 0 Growth Inducing Toxic/Hazardous [8] Land Use Traffic/Circulation D Cumulative Effect Vegetation D Other: Present Land Use: Open Space Preserve Zoning: Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use Designation: Open Space (OS) Project Description: The project entails removal of vegetative material from the north (lakeside or upstream side) and south (downstream side) faces of the dam, spillway, inlet and outlet structure in response to an order from the State of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The project includes initial vegetation removal (to be conducted in 20 12) and ongoing, periodic vegetation removal in perpetuity. This ongoing vegetation removal is required in order to comply with the DSOD permits for the dam. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCI-I number already exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. January 200X Reviewing Agencies Checklist F onn A, continued KEY Resources Agency __ Boating & Waterways __ Coastal Commission __ Coastal Conservancy __ Colorado River Board __ Conservation, Dept. of _III_Fish & Game __ Forestry & Fire Protection __ Office of Historic Preservation __ Parks & Recreation __ Reclamation Board __ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission __ Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation & Housing __ Aeronautics __ California Highway Patrol __ CAL TRANS District# ____ _ __ Department of Transportation Planning (headquarters) __ Housing & Community Development __ Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare __ Health Services. __________ _ State & Consumer Services __ General Services __ OLA (Schools) Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date Au: 23.2012 Signature ~_A~ ~A.IL1 Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: _______________ _ Address: _________________ _ City/State/Zip:--------------- Contact: __________________ _ Applicant: _______________ _ Address:------------------- City/State/Zip: S = Document sent by lead agency X = Document sent by SCH I= Suggested distribution Environmental Protection Agency ___ Air Resources Board ___ California Waste Management Board ___ SWRCB: Clean Water Grants ___ SWRCB: Delta Unit ___ SWRCB: Water Quality ___ SWRCB: Water Rights ___ Regional WQCB # __ _ Youth & Adult Corrections ___ Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices _ __ Energy Commission ___ Native American Heritage Commission ___ Public Utilities Commission ___ Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy ___ State Lands Commission ___ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency _I__ Other: US Fish & Wildlife Service _I __ Other: State ofCA Division of Safety of Dams Ending Date September 24, 2012 Date cg I ,..D l.to (1-- For SCH Use Only: Date Received at SCH Date Review Starts: Date to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: ------------------------------------------------------------------- PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: August 23rd, 2012 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Escondido, California On T · d August, 2012 Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising e This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp --· •• ·-·~·-.. -·---····~·-~ ••. -·--. • ..I ; " .... r~~~\J .r-. !"""" P\ "· c f<"\~ r ! ~.,_;, ; ~ ~ ; :-tJ J.~ L} : ' Proof of Publication of ·~ « ... ~ CITY OF ~CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development November 28, 2012 Patricia C. Bleha North County Advocates 7668 El Camino Real, STE 104-258 Carlsbad, CA 92009 RE: EIA 11-03 -Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project www.carlsbadca.gov Thank you for submitting comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project (SCH No.2012081058). The Planning Division has prepared an individual response to your comment letter dated September 22, 2012. Your comments have been numbered, and each numbered comment is followed by the City's response. If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, at (760) 602- 4626 or via email at: barbara.kennedy@carlsbadca.gov. North County Advocates Comments: Comment 1-We are concerned about your proposal for routine maintenance that appears to be unnecessary and will cause damage to the area around the Lake Calavera Dam. Response 1- The project is necessary to comply with the Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) directives, which state that vegetation on the dam and in the spillway should be removed as needed to allow visual inspection of dam for erosion, rodent burrowing, and for general dam safety as explained in the Project Purpose on page 4 of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The DSOD is a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a State Agency responsible for the supervision of dams and reservoirs. The City is required to comply with the directives of the DSOD. The Draft IS/MND includes the following clarification to the project purpose as shown below in underline (additions) and strikeout (deletions). The purpose of the proposed project is to comply with the directives of respoad to a reeommendation ff.em the DSOD in a field for purposes of public safety. The DSOD inspection report (sheet 1. dated April 19, 20 I 0) includes the following directives, that the follovi'ing aetions ae taken: • Remove the small trees located near the downstream end of the spillway channel on the top left side; and • Remove all obscuring vegetation from the upstream and downstream faces of the dam, including the cattails on the upstream face. Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8559 fax • Keep spillway, inlet, and outlet structures clear of vegetation to allow water flow. The DSOD field inspection report further explained that the "dense tule growth on the upstream face of the dam made it difficult to conduct a thorough visual inspection and provided an inviting area for rodents and burrowing animals. All tules located on the upstream face of the dam should be removed." Comment 2-We feel that the MND fails to identify all of the adverse impacts associated with the project which the MND has not identified and furthermore, has proposed insufficient mitigation regarding failure to comply with requirements for wetlands avoidance/minimization .The following are our specific comments: Response 2- The comment is a summary of concerns. See the responses to comments below. No further response necessary. Comment 3-First, we are concerned with your proposal to remove vegetation to allow for visual inspection ofthe dam face in response to DSOD field inspection reports which appear to be unnecessary because the actual dam inspector report conclusion says signs of rodent activity were not at a significant level and therefore not a problem. So why provide better observation of a nonexistent problem? Vegetation should not be cleared for no real reason. Response 3- The project purpose is not solely related to addressing potential rodent activity. The potential to attract burrowing rodents is merely one of several reasons to implement the project. Keeping the spillway, inlet, and outlet structures clear of vegetation to allow water flow is an important part of the project purpose. The function of the spillway is currently diminished and needs to be restored. The project is necessary to comply with the DSOD directives, which state that vegetation on the dam and in the spillway should be removed as needed to allow visual inspection of dam for erosion, rodent burrowing, and for general dam safety as explained in the Project Purpose on page 4 of the Draft ISIMND. The purpose of the directives has been clarified in the text of the ISIMND and as shown below in underline (additions) and strikeout (deletions). Failure to comply with DSOD directives would constitute a safety hazard for the City, as well as subjecting the City to violation notices and fines, and further action by the DSOD pursuant to Chapter 8 of the California Water Code. The purpose of the proposed project is to comply with the directives of respond to a reeommendation frem the DSOD in a field for purposes of public safety. The DSOD inspection report (sheet 1, dated April 19, 201 0) includes the following directives, that the following aetions be taken: • Remove the small trees located near the downstream end of the spillway channel on the top left side; and • Remove all obscuring vegetation from the upstream and downstream faces of the dam, including the cattails on the upstream face. • Keep spillway, inlet, and outlet structures clear of vegetation to allow water flow. The DSOD field inspection report further explained that the "dense tule growth on the upstream face of the dam made it difficult to conduct a thorough visual inspection and provided an inviting area for rodents and burrowing animals. All tules located on the upstream face of the dam should be removed." Comment 4-Furthermore, removal of vegetation would adversely impact the integrity of the dam as well as give invasive plants greater opportunities to expand. Given the additional wetlands adjacent to the area of wetlands impact there is high likelihood of additional indirect impacts • that have not been identified or mitigated. This reinforces the need to do better wetlands avoidance/minimization. As you probably know, native species are better able to hold the soil in place but most will not survive the kind of extensive pruning that is proposed, particularly in their growing season. Response 4- V egetation must be removed to provide thorough visual access to the dam face during periodic inspections by the DSOD and regular inspections by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). This is a safety requirement with which the City must comply. Roots will remain in place to provide erosion control and slope stability. The project has been designed to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat to the greatest extent practicable while still complying with the directives of the DSOD. Wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, are under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The project does not propose any activity (dredge or fill) subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps in a wetland or non-wetland water (as defined by Section 404). Potential direct and indirect impacts to wetland habitats were assessed in the Biological Resources Technical Report, which was used to prepare the IS/MND for the project. The City will be responsible for obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFG for impacts to CDFG jurisdictional habitat. Exact acreages of mitigation are to be determined by CDFG during the permit approval process (Mitigation Measure BI0-3). Indirect impacts include the potential for construction-related sediment to enter the watercourse and indirectly affect downstream habitat (potentially including adjacent wetlands). However, the project will be compliant with all applicable ordinances pertaining to storm water runoff and the project design will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to avoid and minimize potential impacts. These indirect impacts have been assessed and are considered a less than significant impact with implementation of construction BMPs. Freshwater marsh within the project study area consists of monotypic stands of California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus). The bulrushes, and other species in the project area, are likely to regrow and will require periodic maintenance to trim them as directed by the DSOD. These plants have been removed from the project area previously (in 2010) as part of the Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements Project and have since re-grown. It is likely that the vegetation subject to maintenance will continue to regrow following the initial maintenance activity and will require periodic trimming in order to comply with the directives of the DSOD. Comment 5-In addition, two areas of erosion that resulted from the dam repair project have never been corrected. One of these is around the release vent on the upstream side. The second area is behind the kiosk/sign on the east end of the dam. The steep slope behind the kiosk showed minor erosion before the dam construction, but became much worse with construction. Just across the trail from this eroding slope are two paths fishermen are using to access the lake. The result is that discharges from this steep eroding slope now can easily get to the lake. Response 5- The proposed project is a vegetation clearing project only, in response to a safety requirement from the DSOD. The suggested erosion near the release vent is a trail. There are no plans to perform additional work. Per personal communication with Markus Spiegelberg, Calavera Preserve Manager, the erosion at the kiosk is due to the lack of a well-defined trail and lack of enforcement of trail use on CDFG property. Recreational users at the dam may use the location as a short cut to return to the dam trail. The erosion is not significant at this time. The City has no future plans for this area, as it is dependent on a better definition of the CDFG trail system. Comment 6-Thinning the vegetation will make these problems even worse. These areas should be strengthened and certainly not weakened by removal of vegetation. Response 6- V egetation removal is required in specific locations in order to provide thorough visual access to the dam face during periodic inspections by the DSOD. This is a safety requirement with which the City must comply. Roots will remain in place to provide erosion control and slope stability. Comment 7-Finally although The MND states that measures will be taken to prevent fire and that work crews will be prepared to suppress them if they do occur. most of the fires in this area in the last few years were started by maintenance crews, Isn't it better to prevent your staff from starting these fires in the first place? You need to get a specific plan in place. Response 7- The statement that "most of the fires in this area in the last few years were started by maintenance crews," is unfounded and no evidence exists to support this claim. The City's Standard Operating Procedures require that maintenance crews are trained in fire prevention and that during times of high fire danger, the City will refrain from maintenance activities. A plan is in place and all crews will be properly trained and equipped to avoid accidental ignition and to promptly address any brush fires with fire extinguishers. Equipment used for maintenance activities is maintained and used per manufacturer's specifications. These procedures are included in the Maintenance and Monitoring Manual (Attachment G of the Draft IS/MND). The text in the manual has been modified to provide clarification about standard fire safety procedures as shown below in underline (additions) and strikeout (deletions): 4.1 Fire Safety Maintenance crews will be trained in fire prevention protocols. During times of high fire danger, the City will refrain from maintenance activities. All maintenance crews will be properly trained and equipped to avoid accidental ignition and to promptly address any brush fires with fire extinguishers. Equipment used for maintenance activities will be maintained and used per manufacturer's specifications. '~ <<("» C I T Y 0 F ~CARLSBAD Community &: Economic Development November 28, 2012 Dianne Nygaard Preserve Calavera 5020 Nighthawk Way Oceanside, CA 92008 RE: EIA 11-03-Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project www .ca rlsbadca .gov Thank you for submitting comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Calavera Dam Routine Maintenance Project (SCH No.2012081 058). The Planning Division has prepared an individual response to your comment letter e-mailed on September 24, 2012. Your comments have been numbered, and each numbered comment is followed by the City's response. If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner, at (760) 602- 4626 or via email at: barbara.kennedy@carlsbadca.gov. Preserve Calavera Comments: Project Description Comment 1-The purpose of the project is to remove vegetation to allow for visual inspection of the dam face in response to DSOD field inspection reports. Yet the actual dam inspector report conclusion says "Signs of rodent activity were observed in the area on and around the dam, but were not at a concerning level." It goes on to state "Current rodent abatement measures should be continued." Emails from the city's land manager and city staff who accompanied the DSOD inspector say there currently is no rodent abatement program in place. This really means that in spite of there being no rodent control program, there is no problem with rodents. This certainly does not support the need for such an extensive program just to provide better observation of a nonexistent problem. The BIO report from LSA also discusses no issues with rodent activity along the face of the dam. We also made a field inspection on September 14, 2012 with three persons who have hiked along the dam regularly for many years. Rodent burrows were observed outside of the area of project impact, but not within it. Rodent dens of non-burrowing species were observed within and outside the project boundaries. While there are signs of rodent activity throughout this area, we did not observe burrows or any signs of damaging activity within the project boundaries. In fact the dam itself is an area of very low rodent activity-perhaps because of the sparse vegetation and high level of public and dog use of the trail along the dam. There is no documentation in the inspection report, biologist report, annual land manager report, or any other source provided with this MND that identifies that rodents are causing any problems with the integrity of the dam. Furthermore, given the condition of the vegetation along both faces of the dam it is relatively easy to walk along them, boat along the Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8559 fax ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- water edge, or observe the face from other points along nearby trails in order to determine if there is a rodent problem. Vegetation is being cleared for what is a non-existent problem. Response 1- The project purpose is not solely related to addressing potential rodent activity; rather, the potential to attract burrowing rodents is merely one of several reasons to implement the project. The project is necessary to comply with the Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) directives, which state that vegetation on the dam and in the spillway should be removed as needed to allow visual inspection of dam for erosion, rodent burrowing, and for general dam safety as explained in . the Project Purpose on page 4 of the Draft ISIMND The DSOD is a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a State Agency responsible for the supervision of dams and reservoirs. The City is required to comply with the directives of the DSOD. The Draft ISIMND includes the following clarification to the project purpose as shown below in underline (additions) and strikeout (deletions). The purpose of the proposed project is to comply with the directives of respond to a reeommendation frem the DSOD in a field for purposes of public safety. The DSOD inspection report (sheet 1, dated April 19, 201 0) includes the following directives, that the following aetions be taken: • Remove the small trees located near the downstream end of the spillway channel on the top left side; and • Remove all obscuring vegetation from the upstream and downstream faces of the dam, including the cattails on the upstream face. • Keep spillway, inlet, and outlet structures clear of vegetation to allow water flow. The DSOD field inspection report further explained that the "dense tule growth on the upstream face of the dam made it difficult to conduct a thorough visual inspection and provided an inviting area for rodents and burrowing animals. All tules located on the upstream face of the dam should be removed." Biological Resources Comment 2-The Bio report Appendix D includes no observations of rodents or any other mammals during field inspection. Bio reports are supposed to note presence of species-not just by physically observing the animal, but by "sign" that indicates presence. "Sign" commonly includes track, scat, lay, burrow, nests, etc. (Many mammals are nocturnal and are never physically observed during field inspection during the daytime). I have personally been doing dog poop pick-up on the Lake C dam for about 2 years. I have never been on the dam without seeing numerous sign of mammals. The lack of any mammal sign is an obvious huge error with this report. It is of particular concern because this entire project has been justified because of potential concerns about a mammal undermining the dam and according to your own biologist there are no mammals in the entire project area. Response 2- The project biologists are qualified with extensive experience conducting biological assessments in the local habitat. The project biologists recorded all species observed at the time of the general reconnaissance surveys performed, May 18, 2011, in the list included as Appendix D to the Biological Resources Technical Report. The project biologists observations include physical observations as well as observation of"sign" including scat, tracks, etc. Wildlife observed in the project study area consisted of species commonly found in the vegetation communities described in the Biological Resources Technical Report. A variety ofbirds and one lepidopteran (common white butterfly) were observed, however, no mammals or signs of mammals were observed at that time within the study area for this project. See response above regarding the project purpose. Comment 3-The DSOD inspector report noted that "Current rodent abatement measures should be continued." While staff responded by email that there currently are no rodent control measures in place we are concerned that anecdotal evidence raises concerns that there may have been some recent rodent poisoning that has resulted in further secondary wildlife kills. Please identify any rodent control measures that have been used in the Calavera Reserve since 2004 when this area was formally designated as hard line preserve land. Response 3- This statement that "current rodent abatement measures should be continued" is a misstatement in the inspection report. No rodent abatement measures are in place currently. No poisoning has been implemented. Comment 4-What is called "tules" in the dam inspectors report is likely the areas identified as freshwater marsh in the Bio report. This area includes what we believe to be spiney rush, but is definitely in the rush family. No rushes were included on the Appendix C list of observed vascular plants. Since this is a wetland plant, its absence in the BIO report is of particular concern. Response 4- Freshwater marsh primarily occurs along the upstream face of the dam and along the lake edge at the spillway. Additionally, a small patch of this vegetation community occurs around the outlet structure located at the bottom of the downstream face of the dam. Freshwater marsh within the project study area consists of monotypic stands of California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus). This bulrush is commonly referred to as a "tule" in the DSOD report. It is identified in the list of vascular plant species (Appendix C) on page C-2. An older scientific name, Scirpus sp., is used in the list, although the classification has been updated and the Schoenop/ectus designation is the most recent name used by the scientific community. Southern spiny rush (Juncus acutus spp. leopoldii), a perennial species, was not observed during the 2011 spring survey. Page E-8 of the Draft IS/MND discusses the potential for occurrence for this species, which was determined to have low potential to occur because it would have been observed during the 2011 surveys if present, but was not observed. Comment 5-Common burrowing rodents of this area don't live underwater and the freshwater marsh areas along the upstream face is typically underwater. Since this is a wetland habitat the proposed project is supposed to have first avoided and then minimized any wetland impacts. There is nothing in the MND that indicates any effort to avoid/minimize impacts to these wetlands. Furthermore the reason for the project observance of rodent activity that could damage the dam, would not be a factor in such a wetland habitat. Please describe wetlands avoidance/minimization efforts that support the conclusion that these project impacts make any sense. Response 5- The proposed project minimizes impacts to wetlands by trimming vegetation above the root level, so that root structures remain intact and soil is not disrupted. The project will be implemented without grading or other groundwork that would constitute dredge and fill activities in jurisdictional wetlands. The City is avoiding sensitive habitat to the greatest extent practicable while still complying with the directives of the DSOD, which state that all obscuring vegetation should be removed, including areas of freshwater marsh (bulrushes). Vegetation trimming is required to allow for visual inspection of the dam surface as a matter of public safety. Failure to comply with DSOD directives would constitute a safety hazard for the City, as well as subjecting the City to violation notices and fines, and further action by the DSOD pursuant to Chapter 8, Section 6425 of the California Water Code. As discussed previously in these responses, the purpose of the project is to allow for visual inspection of the dam and to ensure public safety. The project purpose is not solely related to addressing potential rodent activity. The Project Purpose on page 4 of the Draft ISIMND states the following: The DSOD inspection report includes the following directives: • Remove the small trees located near the downstream end of the spillway channel on the top left side; • Remove all obscuring vegetation from the upstream and downstream faces of the dam, including the cattails on the upstream face; and • Keep spillway, inlet, and outlet structures clear of vegetation to allow water flow. The DSOD field inspection report further explained that the "dense tule growth on the upstream face of the dam made it difficult to conduct a thorough visual inspection and provided an inviting area for rodents and burrowing animals. All tules located on the upstream face of the dam should be removed." Comment 6-Area of bio study was too small. Typically an area of concern is described that extends outside of the actual project boundaries. This helps identify any indirect impacts on project boundaries and provides a better understanding of the context of the area of impact. This is of particular concern for the areas of southern willow scrub. Our field observation indicated that there is additional southern willow scrub and other wetlands along the northwest edge of the upstream spillway. Since none of this area is on the actual dam it is questionable how rodent activity here would adversely impact the integrity of the dam. Given the additional wetlands adjacent to the area of wetlands impact there is high likelihood of additional indirect impacts that have not been identified or mitigated. This reinforces the need to do better wetlands avoidance/minimization. Response 6- The Project Survey Area includes areas of direct and indirect effect, as represented in Red in Figure 4 of the Draft ISIMND. This survey area is sufficient to analyze the impacts and the context of the area of impact. The commenter states that "given the additional wetlands adjacent to the area of wetlands impact there is high likelihood of additional indirect impacts that have not been identified or mitigated." Wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, are under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The project does not propose any activity (dredge or fill) subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps in a wetland or non-wetland water (as defined by Section 404). Potential direct and indirect impacts to wetland habitats were assessed in the Biological Resources Technical Report, which was used to prepare the IS/MND for the project. The City will be responsible for obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFG for impacts to CDFG jurisdictional habitat. Exact acreages of mitigation are to be determined by CDFG during the permit approval process (Mitigation Measure BI0-3). Indirect impacts include the potential for construction-related sediment to enter the watercourse and indirectly affect downstream habitat (potentially including adjacent wetlands). However, the project will be compliant with all applicable ordinances pertaining to stormwater runoff and the project design will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to avoid and minimize potential impacts. These indirect impacts have been assessed and are considered a less than significant impact with implementation of construction BMPs. Indirect impacts to nesting birds, wildlife, and downstream habitat were also analyzed in the Biological Resources Report (Attachment C ofthe Draft ISIMND). Pages 21-22 ofthe Biological Resources Report include the following discussion: Indirect impacts include disturbance to nesting birds or wildlife occupying habitat within or adjacent to the project site due to construction noise and dust generation as discussed above. There is potential for construction-related sediment to enter the watercourse and indirectly affect downstream habitat. However, the project will be compliant with all applicable ordinances pertaining to stormwater runoff and the project design will implement BMPs during construction to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, the comment states, "Since none of this area is on the actual dam it is questionable how rodent activity here would adversely impact the integrity of the dam." It is important to remember that the purpose is not solely related to rodent activity. The Project Purpose on page 4 of the Draft IS/MND states the following: The DSOD inspection report includes the following directives: • Remove the small trees located near the downstream end of the spillway channel on the top left side; • Remove all obscuring vegetation from the upstream and downstream faces of the dam, including the cattails on the upstream face; and • Keep spillway, inlet, and outlet structures clear of vegetation to allow water flow. The DSOD field inspection report further explained that the "dense tule growth on the upstream face of the dam made it difficult to conduct a thorough visual inspection and provided an inviting area for rodents and burrowing animals. All tules located on the upstream face of the dam should be removed." Comment 7-On most of both faces ofthe dam vegetation is sparse, includes lots of invasives, but does have a few pockets of native vegetation. The proposed cutting of vegetation to 4 inches in height 3- 6 times per year for 1-5 days each will likely result in even more extensive invasive cover and the loss of the native species. The natives species are better able to hold the soil in place but most will not survive the kind of extensive pruning that is proposed-particularly in their growing season. A better approach would be to do perhaps 2 x a year cutting of the non-native plants. This would include mustard/fennel in the spring before they flower, and castor bean and others in the fall. At most, native vegetation should be treated like it is in the outer zone for fire protection with selective thinning of plants to provide openings that would allow observation of ground conditions. Response 7- The periodic trimming of the types of native vegetation that occur on the dam face will not result in the increase of nonnative invasive species cover. The trimmed native vegetation rootsystems are left intact and the native vegetation will grow back to the point where additional trimming is required to maintain the DSOD required surface visibility. The City must comply with the directives of the DSOD. These directives are a safety requirement to allow for thorough visual access to the dam and spillway and to avoid creating inviting habitat for burrowing rodents. Roots will remain in place to provide erosion control and slope stability. Vegetation, including bulrushes, and other species in the project area are likely to regrow and will require periodic maintenance to trim them as directed by the DSOD. These plants have been removed from the project area previously (in 2010) as part ofthe Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements Project and have since regrown. It is anticipated that the vegetation subject to maintenance will continue to regrow following the initial maintenance activity and will require periodic trimming. Comment 8-It is concluded that vegetation cutting "may be required during the breeding season." Why? There really is no information provided that supports this. Why is 6 inches of plant height the trigger that determines 2 inches of plant height must be removed? Why is it necessary to do any of this in the breeding season? The MND does not provide any justification for the extent or schedule of vegetation cutting. Response 8- Maintenance activities aie likely to be required during breeding season, which also coincides with the growing season for most plant species. The Draft IS/MND states (page 5) that, "the City estimates maintenance will be required approximately 3 to 6 times per year, depending on weather conditions. Because this vegetation grows rapidly during the bird breeding season, vegetation removal may be required during the breeding season." Six inches of plant height, is determined by the City to be the appropriate threshold to trigger the need for maintenance based on other ongoing vegetation maintenance that occurs within the City. Comment 9-Bio 1 states that the biologist will walk and flush any birds prior to cutting outside the breeding season. In other places it says nesting surveys will be done during the breeding season with limits marked around any nests found. But it does not provide for flushing outside of the restricted areas. Please add flushing for any areas to be impacted that are outside of the limits of nests if impacts are to occur during the nesting season. Response 9- The Mitigation Measure BIO-I is updated to read. [BI0-1] Implementation of construction or clearing of vegetation within the project impact footprint shall occur outside of breeding season (March through September). The USFWS shall be notified at least seven days before clearing and grubbing begins. During construction conducted outside of the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall walk the area directly ahead of construction equipment to flush birds from the area. The biologist shall immediately report to the USFWS the number and location of any federally listed birds disturbed by clearing and .grubbing. No California gnatcatchers shall be injured or killed. If construction must commence during breeding season, then the City shall have a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds, including raptors, within three days prior to construction. Should nesting birds be detected within 100 feet of the project impact footprint, the USFWS shall be notified immediately of any federally listed species that are located during the pre-construction survey. A qualified biologist shall then establish suitable buffer area (at least 300 feet) within which no construction activity may take place until the nest is no longer active. A qualified biologist shall walk the area directly ahead of construction equipment to flush birds from areas outside of the nesting buffer if construction occurs during nesting season. Additions are in underscore. Hydrology/Water Quality Comment 10-We have previously reported (several times) two areas of erosion that resulted from the dam repair project and have never been corrected. One of these is around the release vent on the upstream side. The erosion channel now measures about 15 inches deep in some places and extends from the top of the dam all the way to the lake. This is an area of active discharge from the dam face. We believe the vegetation clearing associated with the construction around this release vent was never properly addressed. Bare dirt set up conditions for continued erosion and it is likely this is exacerbated by staff and fishermen using this route for inspection of the dam and to access the lake. Further degrading of vegetation will just exacerbate this already active erosion site. This continuing erosion is a potential threat to the integrity of the dam. Response 10 - The identified area of erosion near the release vent is in fact a trail. Changes to the trail are not part of the proposed dam safety project. There are no plans to perform additional work at this time. Comment 11 -The second area is behind the kiosk/sign on the east end of the dam. The steep slope behind the kiosk showed minor erosion before the dam construction, but became much worse with construction. Just across the trail from this eroding slope are two paths fishermen are using to access the lake. The result is that discharges from this steep eroding slope now can easily get to the lake. The attached pictures show these two areas. The proposed project will set up conditions that contribute to further erosion at these two locations, further discharges into the Lake and creek, and will contribute to further erosion along the entire dam face and spillway by excessive removal of vegetation. The MND has not fully identified or mitigated for these impacts. Response 11 - Per personal communication between Sherri Howard, City of Carlsbad Associate Engineer and Markus Spiegelberg, Calavera Preserve Manager, the erosion at the kiosk is due to the lack of a well-defined trail and lack of enforcement of trail use on nearby CDFG property. Recreational users at the dam may use the location as a shortcut to return to the dam trail. Erosion repair is not part of the proposed dam safety project. The City has no future plans for this area at this time, as it is dependent on CDFG to implement improved trail markers and enforcement. Comment 12-There needs to be a much better description of BMP's that will be used to prevent discharges to the creek/lake. Land managers have documented several locations in preserves where lizards and snakes have gotten caught and died in wattle netting. Other commonly used measures like silt fences could create barriers for wildlife movement. The BMP's need to be designed for these specific site conditions, in hardline preserve land and assure there will be no indirect impacts. Response 12 - The Draft ISIMND identifies that all activities will be conducted in compliance with NPDES regulations and the BMPs that will be implemented for the project. The Maintenance and Monitoring Manual (Attachment G to the Draft ISIMND) requires that construction areas are delineated with markers (construction tape). No wattle netting or silt fences will be used. The BMP features will be temporarily installed during maintenance activities and will be removed after maintenance activities are completed. Comment 13-Page 19 of the Bio report concludes that since there will be no discharge project is not subject to 401 permit. We disagree with this conclusion. Ground and site conditions make it clear that regular walking on the face of the dam can lead to erosion and discharge. There are already two locations in the project area with active erosion. This project has not provided adequate inspection/ monitoring and corrective action for erosion. Furthermore the city has ignored existing conditions that are already a violation of existing permits. Response 13 - The project is a vegetation clearing project only, and is being implemented in response to a safety requirement from the DSOD. Erosion repair is not part of the project purpose. There will be no soil disruption as part of project implementation. Furthermore, the project will not result in fill or discharge into waters of the United States, so no Federal Clean Water Act regulatory permits are required. Therefore, the Biological Resources Report is correct in the conclusion that a Section 401 Certification is not required. Comment 14-The Bio report discussion of MHCP/HMP compliance on pages 26 and 29 states "The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent feasible." The project has failed to include any restrictions on native vegetation removal and is in conflict with these provisions. Response 14 - The project was designed to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat (including native vegetation) to the greatest extent practicable. The limits of vegetation removal were determined by directives from the DSOD to remove all vegetation from the spillway to allow for full function of the spillway. The project was designed to remove only the vegetation which has re-grown in areas where it was previously cleared during the Remedial Improvements Project and leaves the roots in place to maintain soil stability. The limits of vegetation removal are clearly defined in the exhibits provided in the Draft IS/MND and HMMP (Figure 4 Vegetation and Maintenance Areas). Furthermore, the limits of work will be defined by construction tape in the field to ensure that vegetation beyond the maintenance limits will not be removed. The limits of work will be verified by CDFG during the permitting process. Comment 15-Page 25 of the Bio report lists measures from the MHCP/HMP and then states "Many of the listed measures are not applicable to the proposed project design." This does not distinguish which are applicable_ and which are not and leaves it completely up in the air as to which conditions will be complied with. The report should identify all that are applicable and provide assurances that all applicable items have been addressed in project design and/or mitigation. Failure to do so leaves this in conflict with regional/local conservation plan which is an unmitigated impact. Response 15 - Measures which were not applicable to the project are not included in the project documentation. The list of HMP measures provided in the Draft IS/MND is also included in the Maintenance Manual prepared by the City and included in the Draft IS/MND as Attachment G. The Maintenance Manual requires inspection and monitoring to ensure that all applicable measures are addressed with implementation of the project. The following text is an excerpt from the Maintenance Manual (Attachment G of the Draft IS/MND). Applicable design guidelines and pre-and post-construction avoidance and minimization measures are listed below. Project Design Guidelines. Source: MHCP Vol. I, Section 6.2.3, and Agency comments. • Locate staging areas in developed areas, to the degree feasible. • Designate no-fueling zones within 10 meters (33 feet) of drainages and fire-sensitive areas. Pre-construction Mitigation Measures. Sources MHCP Vol. I, Sec 6.2.3; and MHCP Vol. II, Appendix B, Agency comments. • A qualified biologist shall conduct a training session for all project personnel prior to proposed activities. At a minimum, the training shall include a description of the target species of concern and their habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the HMP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the HMP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, and the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the target species of concern as they relate to the project, access routes, and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be conducted. • The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible and shall be specified in Figure 3 and 4. Construction limits will be delineated with survey lath, which will be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. All employees shall be instructed that their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials are restricted to the proposed project footprint, designated staging areas, and routes of travel. Construction-Related Mitigation Measures. Sources: MHCP Vol. I, Sec 6.2.3; MHCP Vol. II, Appendix B; HMP p. D-95; and Agency comments. • Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to the City summarizing how the project complies with applicable conditions. The project biologist should be empowered to halt work activity if necessary and to confer with City staff to ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection measures. • Any habitat destroyed that is not in the identified project footprint shall be disclosed immediately to the City, USFWS, and CDFG and shall be compensated at a minimum ratio of 5:1. • Access to and from the site will be located along existing access routes or disturbed areas to the greatest extent possible. All access routes outside of existing roads or construction areas will be clearly marked. • Construction employees will limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the fenced project footprint. • Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on disturbed upland sites with minimal risk of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats, and at least 100 feet from waters of the U.S. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. All necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. All project-related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to the City and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas. • Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into watercourses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species. All revegetation plans shall be prepared and implemented consistent with MHCP Volume II, Appendix C (Revegetation Guidelines) and shall require written concurrence of the USFWS and CDFG. • Noise impacts are a concern around areas supporting breeding bird habitat. To avoid or minimize noise impacts, limit construction activities during the breeding season (March through September) to those that will not produce significant noise impacts (i.e., noise levels greater than 60 dB Leq [decibels, equivalent sound level] at the edge.ofthe habitat of concern). Pre-construction surveys at potential impact areas will be conducted from mid-May to mid-June. These are currently being done by CNLM, the preserve manager and it is assumed they will continue to perform these surveys. • Lighting in or adjacent to the preserve will not be used, except where essential for roadway, facility use, and safety. If nighttime construction lights are necessary, all lighting adjacent to natural habitat will be shielded and/or directed away from habitat. • Fugitive dust will be avoided and minimized through watering and other appropriate measures. • If dead or injured listed species are located, initial notification must be made within three working days, in writing, to the USFWS Division of Law Enforcement in Torrance, California and by telephone and in writing to the applicable jurisdiction, Carlsbad Field Office of the USFWS, and CDFG. • Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site. • To avoid attracting predators of the target species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s). Pets of project personnel shall not be allowed on site where they may come into contact with any listed species. • The City of Carlsbad has the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs. The USFWS and CDFG may accompany City representatives on these inspections. • All mitigation sites shall be conserved through fee title acquisition or Conservation Easement, as defined in California Civil Code Section 815.1, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the jurisdictional city prior to land disturbance. Special Requirements. The project is not located within a Standards Area or Coastal Zone; however it is located within the preserve boundary. Required BMPs will limit erosion and siltation and would ensure that no new surface drainage is directed into the preserve. The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to special-status species (including breeding birds) to a less than significant level: • Implementation of construction or clearing of vegetation within the project impact footprint shall occur outside of breeding season (March through September). The USFWS shall be notified at least seven days before clearing and grubbing begins. During construction conducted outside of the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall walk the area directly ahead of construction equipment to flush birds from the area. The biologist shall immediately report to the USFWS the number and location of any federally listed birds disturbed by clearing and grubbing. No California gnatcatchers shall be injured or killed. If construction must commence during breeding season, then the City shall have a qualified biologist conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds, including raptors, within three days prior to construction. Should nesting birds be detected within 100 feet of the project impact footprint, the USFWS shall be notified immediately of any federally listed species that are located during the pre-construction survey. A qualified biologist shall then establish suitable buffer area (at least 300 feet) within which no construction activity may take place until the nest is no longer active. • During the breeding season, construction noise shall be monitored by a City-approved noise consultant regularly to maintain a threshold at or below 60 dBA hourly Leq within 300 feet of breeding habitat occupied by listed species. If noise levels supersede the threshold, the construction array shall be changed or noise attenuation measures will be implemented, as recommended in the draft Guidelines for Biological Studies (City of Carlsbad 2008). Comment 16-The MND does not specify where mitigation will occur. There is a statement that particularly for the wetlands this is not expected to be on site. It is not possible to determine if the proposed mitigation provides equivalent biological value without specifying where it will be located. Gross acres and ratios alone provide no assurances of equivalent biological value-particular for loss of freshwater wetlands in an area that has already lost an estimated 95% of its historic wetlands. Please include further details of proposed mitigation. Response 16 - The location of mitigation is often determined during the permitting process. Mitigation measure BI0-3 has been updated to include "performance standards" to ensure that the resource value of the mitigation is equivalent to the value of the impact, consistent with the requirements ofCEQA. The mitigation will be implemented in compliance with the City Habitat Management Plan that has been approved by the wildlife resource agencies. There will be no net loss of wetland resources after mitigation has been implemented. The City has discussed the project with CDFG, Corps, and R WQCB staff during a pre- application multi-agency meeting on July 12, 2011, to obtain input in designing the project to the satisfaction of the resource agencies. The project will implement mitigation to meet the City's HMP requirements, which the wildlife agencies (including CDFG) are signatory to. The resource agencies may choose to impose additional conditions of approval above and beyond what is required by CEQA. Mitigation Measure BI0-3 has been updated to provide additional clarification. Additions are made in underscore and deletions are made in strike-through. [BI0-3] The City will be responsible for obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG for impacts to 0.36 acre ofCDFG jurisdictional habitat. Hazards • The City will be responsible for prov.iding mitigation for permanent impacts to 0.18 acre of freshwater marsh at a 1:1 (0.18 acre) or 2:1 ratio (0.36 acre) pursuant to requirements of the HMP. The mitigation ratio requirement varies based on type of replacement habitat. • The City will be responsible for providing mitigation for permanent impacts to 0.10 acre of southern willow scrub at a 1:1 (0.1 0 acre) or 2:1 ratio (0.20 acre) pursuant to requirements ofthe HMP. The mitigation ratio requirement varies based on type of replacement habitat. • Habitat restoration or creation will be performed to meet the City's HMP requirements for impacts to wetlands and riparian scrub. Creation or restoration shall occur under the direction of a professional biologist, shall be subject to monitoring, and shall be subject to the approval of the CDFG through the regulatory permitting process. Comment 17-The MND states that measures will be taken to prevent fire and that work crews will be prepared to suppress them if they do occur. Since most of the fires in this area in the last few years were started by maintenance crews, please be more specific about how this risk is being addressed. Response 1 7 - The statement that "most of the fires in this area in the last few years were started by maintenance crews," is unfounded and no evidence exists to support this claim. The City's Standard Operating Procedures require that maintenance crews are trained in fire prevention and that, during times of high fire danger, the City will refrain from maintenance activities. A plan is in place and all crews will be properly trained and equipped to avoid accidental ignition and to promptly address any brush fires with fire extinguishers. Equipment used for maintenance activities is maintained and used per manufacturer's specifications. These procedures are included in the Maintenance and Monitoring Manual (Attachment G of the Draft IS/MND). The text in the manual has been modified to provide clarification about standard fire safety procedures as shown below in underline (additions): 4.1 Fire Safety Maintenance crews will be trained in fire prevention protocols. During times of high fire danger, the City will refrain from maintenance activities. All maintenance crews will be properly trained and equipped to avoid accidental ignition and to promptly address any brush fires with fire extinguishers. Equipment used for maintenance activities will be maintained and used per manufacturer's specifications. Greenhouse Gases Comment 18-The city of Carlsbad does not have an adopted Climate Action Plan( CAP) so there are no assurances that regional thresholds will be achieved. It is our understanding that the city's CAP is currently being developed. Since this project has no time limit, please add a MM that project will comply with any relevant provisions of the City's CAP once it is adopted. Response 18 - CEQA conclusions of significance are not dependent upon the approval of a CAP and, in fact, most jurisdictions do not have an adopted CAP at this time. Mitigation is only appropriate under CEQA if an impact is potentially significant. Mitigation is not appropriate for impacts that are less than significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 ( a)(3) states that "mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant." The project impacts related to GHG emissions are substantially below the significance thresholds and no mitigation is necessary. The Draft IS/MND for the project analyzes the project's consistency with applicable GHG plans and strategies that are currently in place. These include the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the ·San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). See Pages 30-32 of the Draft IS/MND for a discussion of GHG emissions. Comment 19-We disagree with the statement that this project does not generate "additional long term GHG emissions." This project will add a small number of trips, several times a year-potentially forever, Although the GHG emissions are small-they are all in addition to business as usual and they will all add to cumulative GHG emissions. Response 19 - The comment pertains to long-term emissions. The project does not contribute new long-term or operational emissions because there will be little or no change in the existing number of off-site vehicle trips (approximately 5 per year). The project site is located at the Calavera Preserve, where existing maintenance is ongoing. During the initial clearing operation, the project could generate up to 10 Average Daily Trips (ADT) per day for up to five days. Periodic maintenance activities could generate up to 4 ADT, for up to five days per maintenance activity, 3-6 times per year. Please refer to Pages 30-32 of the Draft IS/MND for a discussion of GHG emissions. To provide additional clarification, construction and operational GHG emissions are amortized over 30 years, so the annual project contribution from a maximum of 120 truck trips per year is negligible. The GHG emissions from the proposed project are well below significance thresholds (e.g., l 0,000 metric tons/year for construction included in the SCAQMD suggested guidelines, December 2008; 7,000 metric tons/year by the CARB, October 2008). The project's emissions are approximately 19.78 metric tons/year. For these reasons, the project's contribution to global climate change is not cumulatively considerable and, therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Other Comment 20-For the Lake C dam repair project the EIR said that the construction area would be fenced off to keep the public out. Orange fencing was installed, but was soon cut and the city allowed full public access through the construction site. Since fencing installation causes temporary impacts it should only be used where necessary. Please provide further details about how project areas will be restricted during work times with minimal damage. Response 20 - As documented on page 17 of the Final IS/MND, construction limits will be delineated with construction tape, rather than orange fencing, which will be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. The changes in the body of the IS/MND are reflected in underscore (additions) and strike- through text (deletions). All employees shall be instructed that their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials are restricted to the proposed project footprint, designated staging areas, and routes of travel. This measure is required as part ofthe standard impact measures to be applied to all projects within the HMP and is included in the Maintenance and Monitoring Manual for the project, which will be subject to regular inspection and reporting. Comment 21-There is a pile of small chunks of concrete toward the east end of the upstream face of the dam. This appears to be leftover construction debris from the dam repair and should be removed as it could be dislodged by fishermen accessing the lake or by heavy rains. A real"routine maintenance" program would have identified and removed this debris. Response 21 - The project does not involve removal of concrete or debris. The proposed project is a vegetation removal project only that is being implemented to comply with the directives of the DSOD, which constitute a safety requirement. The issue of debris is not related to this project or the Draft IS/MND. Comment 22-Given the small size of the maps and lack of any GPS or other way to determine accurate boundaries it would be helpful for projects like this to include GPS or other identifying information so that field work can be verified. Response 22 - It is not typical to provide Geographic Information System (GIS) data to the public for "field verification" purposes. Field maps ofthe areas to be surveyed were prepared, including a 2010 aerial photograph base overlaid with preliminary project boundaries provided by the City at a scale of 1 inch = 50 feet. This scale and method is accepted in the industry and provides adequate information for a thorough analysis. The permitting agencies will review the technical studies to verify accuracy. The City's consultant, LSA Associates, Inc., is a professional environmental consulting firm with a successful36-year history in the industry. The analysis contained in the Draft IS/MND and supporting technical studies represents LSA and the City's best professional opinion. ~ /.1~.~~ ~~~_,CITY OF ¥CARLSBAD • Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov October 9, 2012 Sherri Howard Associate Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 SUBJECT: EIA 11-03-CALAVERA DAM MAINTENANCE PROJECT MND Dear Ms. Howard: Pursuant to Senate Bill 1535, approved in 2006, it has been determined that your project is subject to filing fees levied by the State Department of Fish and Game (DFG). This law requires the State of California Department of Fish and Game to levy a fee (Effective January 1, 2010, DFG has implemented fee increases) to all project applicants (public and private) subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. Projects which are categorically exempt from CEQA and which have no adverse impact on fish and wildlife, or projects which are denied, are not subject to the fee. All other projects are subject to the following fees (fees effective January 1, 2012): Projects with Negative Declarations $2,151.50 Projects with EIRs $2,969.00 Due to State Law constraints, the City of Carlsbad will collect the fee where applicable and pass it to the County of San Diego. The fee above includes the County Clerk's filing fee of $50.00. This fee is payable to the County on approval of your project. Please remit a check for $2151.50 (payable to the County Clerk) to Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner, City of Carlsbad, Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Please note the application will not be scheduled for a hearing until the fee has been received by the Planning Division. If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4626. Sincerely, BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP Associate Planner BK:bd 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® Sf:N-r 'o I~ I J._, _4~_A CITY OF VcARLSBAD Planning Division June 25, 2012 Sherri Howard City of Carlsbad Utilities Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 • LJ FILE www.carlsbadca.gov SUBJECT: 2N° REVIEW FOR EIA 11-03 -CALAVERA DAM LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your environmental impact assessment, application no. EIA 11-03 -Calavera Dam Long-Term Maintenance, as to its completeness for processing. The items requested from you earlier to make your Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA 11- 03) application complete have been received and reviewed by the Planning Division. It has been determined that the application is now complete for processing. Although the initial processing of your application may have already begun, the technical acceptance date is acknowledged by the date of this communication. Please note that although the application is now considered complete, there may be issues that could be discovered during project review and/or environmental review. Any issues should be resolved prior to scheduling the project for public hearing. In addition, the City may request, in the course of processing the application, that you clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the basic information required for the application. The City will complete the review of your resubmittal within 25 days. Sincerely, DAVE DE CORDOVA Principal Planner DdC:BK:sm c: Don Neu, Planning Director Tecla Levy, Project Engineer Dave de Cordova, Principal Planner File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 Af~_A CITY OF VcARLSBAD Planning Division October 5, 2011 Sherri Howard • City of Carlsbad Utilities Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92010 • SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR EIA 11-03-CALAVERA DAM LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE www.carlsbadca.gov Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your environmental impact assessment, application no. EIA 11-03 Calavera Dam Long-Term Maintenance, as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. The following items are needed to complete your application: Planning: 1. Please submit a biological impact assessment report. 2. Please submit an Initial Study. Engineering: 1. Please provide a Tier 1 SWPPP. When all required materials are submitted, the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, August 19, 2011, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Barbara Kennedy, at (760) 602-4626, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Land Development Engineering Division: Tecla Levy, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2733. Sincerely, /() i~-c~ ~~OVA Principal Planner DdC:BK:bd c: Don Neu, Planning Director Tecla Levy, Project Engineer Dave deCordova, Principal Planner File Copy Data Entry 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559