HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2018-0011; Recycled Water Phase III Pipeline Segment 5; ADDENDUM REPORT TO THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY AND ADOPTED IS/MND FINDINGS FOR CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT; 2018-07-27
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
July 24, 2018 KJC-27
Ms. Lindsey Stephenson, P.E., Senior Engineer
City of Carlsbad Public Works
5950 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Addendum Report to the Biological Resources Study and Adopted IS/MND findings for
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project
Dear Ms. Stephenson:
This document is an update to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted IS/MND)
EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012 (SCH No. 2012091049), findings for the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD) Phase III Recycled Water Project (Approved Project) located in the City of Carlsbad
(City), San Diego County, California. The IS/MND was adopted by the Board of Directors of the CMWD on
November 27, 2012. A focused biological resources study was prepared May 15, 2013, by HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX), subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND (HELIX 2013). The
biological resources study provided specific information necessary in fulfilling State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) CEQA-Plus requirements and CMWD’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Program (SRF Program) application, which requires demonstration of project conformance with federal
policy pertaining to biological resources.
As addressed in the Adopted IS/MND, the Approved Project components have been designed to be
restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility right-of-way (ROW) areas,
access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential,
and other mixed-use developments. The IS/MND determined that the areas being considered for
construction of Approved Project components do not support high-quality biological resources, and the
Approved Project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive biological resources, including
those resources protected under federal policy. However, several of the Approved Project components
were determined to occur adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could
support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, and potential
indirect impacts to these resources (e.g., night lighting, construction noise and vibration, runoff, and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel) were determined to occur during
construction. Potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures
Bio-1A through Bio-1F as identified in the IS/MND and focused biological resources study.
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 2 of 17
July 24, 2018
This update addresses proposed modifications to the Approved Project, which include multiple recycled
water pipeline extensions in the northeastern portion of the City and a storage tank relocation in the
central part of the City, near Black Rail Road. These modifications are geographically separate from the
segments described in the IS/MND for the Approved Project and do not encroach on the potentially
sensitive areas addressed therein. This report supplements the IS/MND with analysis that pertains
specifically to the proposed modifications to the Approved Project. The proposed modifications include:
• Two extensions would be added to the Segment 5 pipelines; one extension would extend the
pipeline north on Tamarack Avenue; the other extension would branch off the Marron Road
pipeline north on Monroe Street. In addition, minor meter location refinements would be
included (Figure 1, Pipeline Improvements).
• An extension to the Segment 7 pipeline would be added on Tamarack Avenue that would
connect a gap in the previously proposed Segment 7 pipelines (Figure 1).
• New potable water pipelines, ranging in size from six inches to eight inches in diameter, would
be installed in the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (Figure 1; hereafter
referred to as Palisades potable water pipelines and Flower Fields potable water pipelines). The
pipelines would be installed parallel to the existing potable water pipelines, which would be
abandoned in place. These pipelines are located in the same vicinity as portions of the
previously proposed Segment 5 alignments.
• The 1.5-million gallon (MG) storage tank is proposed to be located on the vacant, pre-graded
pad southeast of the existing 8.5 MG storage tank on the D Tank site, near Black Rail Road (see
Figure 2, Storage Tank Relocation). The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline
adjacent to the site. This location is approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed tank
location. The proposed storage tank would also have security lighting.
The following analysis addresses CEQA and federal policy conformance and updates the analysis within
the prior Adopted IS/MND as well as the 2013 biological resources letter report.
METHODS
Prior to conducting the general biological survey, HELIX reviewed the biological resources study for the
Approved Project (HELIX 2013), performed an updated search of the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB; California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2017), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Status List (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
[USFWS] 2017a; Attachment A), USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2017b), and USFWS National
Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2017c) database applications to obtain information regarding federally-
protected resources known to occur within the vicinity of the study area. Other primary resources
consulted for the study included the CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project IS/MND (Carlsbad
Municipal Water District [CMWD] 2012a), City Sewer Master Plan and City of Carlsbad Municipal Water
District Water and Recycled Water Master Plans EIR (Atkins 2012b), Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (City
of Carlsbad [City] 1996), and City Habitat Management Plan (City 2004). Additionally, the USFWS
Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC) was reviewed for the proposed modifications
(Attachment B).
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 3 of 17
July 24, 2018
HELIX biologist Amy Mattson conducted a general biological survey on October 3, 2017, between the
hours of 10:15 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. The survey covered the two Segment 5 pipeline extensions and the
storage tank location to obtain 100 percent visual coverage and verify existing conditions on and in the
immediate vicinity (within approximately 100 feet) of each component. The MND prepared for the
project did not identify direct or indirect biological impacts associated with Segment 7, and this area was
not re-surveyed. From review of aerial imagery, general biological surveys of the potable water pipeline
alignments were determined to not be warranted due to their alignment parallel to existing pipelines in
existing roads.
The survey focused on inventorying existing vegetation communities; qualifying habitat suitability and
potential for occurrence of federally-listed species protected under the Endangered Species Act;
identifying wetlands and other waters of the U.S. protected under the Clean Water Act; identifying
potential nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; identifying
coastal resources subject to Coastal Zone Management Act policy; and confirming the absence of
Essential Fish Habitat. The entire survey area was surveyed on foot with the aid of binoculars and all
observed or detected plant and animal species were recorded in field notes. Animal identifications were
made in the field by visual observation or detection of calls, burrows, tracks, scat, and other animal sign.
All plant identifications were made in the field.
Nomenclature used in this report follows the same conventions as specified in the 2013 biological
resources study.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CONFORMANCE
ISSUE 1: Special-Status Species
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] or USFWS?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. Similar to the Phase III sites analyzed in the Adopted
IS/MND, the proposed modifications occur entirely within existing development (i.e., relocation of the
storage tank to within an enclosed reclaimed water tank facility) or in developed roads surrounded by
existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. The areas surrounding the new
extensions are regularly used by vehicles and pedestrians, which present ongoing adverse direct and
indirect effects on state- and federally-listed species associated with regular roadway use,
encroachment into undeveloped areas, nighttime lighting, and high noise levels. These ongoing effects
degrade the existing habitat and deter state- and federally-listed species from using the area. In
addition, most of the sites are constrained in all directions by existing developments, thereby reducing
the likelihood for state- and federally-listed species to disperse or migrate over the sites and immediate
vicinity. The relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in proximity to some of the sites
has been reduced to fragmented and low-quality stands of habitat, which are disconnected and isolated
from larger habitat blocks in the local and regional area. Most of these off-site stands do not offer the
space and resources required by the state- and federally-listed species known to occur in the region.
Given these factors, state- and federally-listed species would not be expected to occur on or in the
immediate vicinity of proposed modifications.
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 4 of 17
July 24, 2018
Further discussion is provided below regarding potential effects of the proposed modifications on state-
and federally-listed species.
State-and Federally-Listed Plant Species
None of the 54 special-status plant species noted in the Adopted IS/MND have been reported as
occupying habitat specifically located within the Segment 5 extensions, or within the storage tank
location. The USFWS’s IPaC was reviewed to confirm no additional listed species occur in the vicinity of
the proposed modifications (Attachment B). No listed plant species were observed during the October 3,
2017 general biological survey.
The proposed modifications lack suitable habitat for listed plant species and are characterized by paved
asphalt within existing road ROW, disturbed bare earth, or landscaped hillsides associated with
previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is made up primarily of non-native ruderal
(weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. No listed plant species would be expected to occur on
or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modification sites given the high level of disturbance and
overall unsuitability of the existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore, no direct or
indirect effects on state- and federally-listed plant species are anticipated to occur as a result of
proposed modifications.
State-and Federally-Listed Animal Species
None of the 63 listed animal species noted in the Adopted IS/MND have been reported as occupying
habitat specifically located within the proposed modification sites. The USFWS’s IPaC was reviewed to
confirm no additional listed species occur in the vicinity of the proposed modifications (Attachment B).
No listed animal species were observed or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers,
tracks, scat, etc.) during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Therefore, none of the 63 listed
animal species have the potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves, and no
direct effects would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
Special-status wildlife species are also not expected to occur along most of the project modifications.
Most of the areas surrounding the proposed modifications are developed and/or subject to
anthropogenic disturbances, and the relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in
proximity to some of these areas has been reduced to small, fragmented, and low-quality stands, which
are disconnected and isolated from habitat in the local and regional area. Undeveloped land occurs to
the north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension, west of the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue
extension (coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland), and west of the Segment 7 extension.
The Segment 5 Monroe Street extension would be constructed within an existing developed road
between a shopping center and its parking lot; however, Buena Vista Creek occurs to the north of the
proposed modification. The Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension would also be located within an
existing developed road; however, coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland is present on the slope west
of Tamarack Avenue. Disturbed habitat and patches of eucalyptus woodland are next to the roadway
along Segment 7. The Flower Fields potable water pipelines would be constructed within an existing
multi-family residential apartment complex, buffered by residences from adjacent land uses; landscaped
trees are present with the complex. The Palisades potable water pipelines would be constructed within
an existing single-family residential neighborhood, buffered by residences from adjacent land uses;
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 5 of 17
July 24, 2018
landscaped trees are present with the neighborhood. The storage tank is proposed within an existing
reclaimed water tank facility (the D Tank facility). The area proposed for the storage tank is a graded
pad, characterized by sparse, primarily horticultural vegetation. Some large trees, including eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus sp.), are present in landscaped areas within the facility. Trees are also present by the new
sections of Segment 5. Within all of these areas, no trees, shrubs, or sensitive habitat would be directly
disturbed by these modifications, except for a small portion of ornamental landscaped vegetation at the
Palisades potable water pipelines.
Potential indirect effects on state- and federally-listed animal species from construction of the proposed
modifications could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition,
construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of
construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may
support state- and federally-listed animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of
construction; however, CMWD has committed to daytime construction hours, and construction of the
proposed modifications would not require the use of nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have
security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into sensitive biological
areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant.
Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration, and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas
could be potentially adverse and significant to state- and federally-listed species if construction would
occur during the breeding season and if the species would be nesting in the immediate vicinity of
construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F from the 2012 IS/MND below would
reduce potentially adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting state- and federally-listed species
to less than significant levels. With the implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications
would not likely adversely affect nesting state-listed species, there would be less than significant impact
with mitigation, and the proposed modifications would be in conformance with CEQA.
Mitigation
The following measures taken from the Adopted IS/MND would mitigate potential adverse effects and
significant impacts on state- and federally-listed species to less than significant levels.
Bio-1A Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including
raptors, the CMWD shall enforce the following:
Prior to construction activities requiring the removal, pruning, or damage of any trees,
shrubs, and man- made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) during general breeding
seasons (January 15 to September 15), the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a
pre-construction survey to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the
areas planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to
the start of construction for a particular project component.
If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for
construction, or if any active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet of
the areas planned for construction, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 6 of 17
July 24, 2018
demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor construction activities. No construction
activities shall occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no
longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nest or until the end of the general breeding
season, whichever occurs later. A qualified biologist shall confirm, in writing, that no
disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction
activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall
be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be
placed on the construction plans.
Bio-1B Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of the storage tank and
the new extensions on Segment 5 and 7, that will occur within disturbed or developed land,
but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area
supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentially suitable for
special status species) or trees, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-
construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project
construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of
construction for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with
a copy of the project plans that clearly depict the construction work limits, including
construction staging and storage areas, in order to determine which specific portion(s) of
the project will require inspection of adjacent open space areas during the pre-construction
survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of the adjacent open
space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the likelihood
for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to
breed in the area. The pre-construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior
to construction in order to verify the need for additional construction measures proposed
within Bio-1C through Bio-1F.
Bio-1C Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation
measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat
areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a
qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange construction fencing,
which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the
edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing
shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of construction
activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until
the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall
be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this
measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior to and concurrent with construction.
Bio-1D Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season
(January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California
gnatcatcher, migratory songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent
undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly
average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting site) may take place within
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 7 of 17
July 24, 2018
500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 through
September 15). If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B
that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during
the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the
construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction
activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting
breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA
hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer
with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFW to ensure the proper implementation of additional
protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the
USFWS and/or CDFW within 24 hours of its occurrence.
Bio-1E Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation
measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat
areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design
final project construction staging areas such that no staging areas shall be located within
sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval by the City
Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of equipment outside of
the project boundaries.
Bio-1F Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure
Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or
habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified
biologist to attend pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive
resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements.
ISSUE 2: Sensitive Natural Communities
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Sensitive natural communities have been reported at
locations in the vicinity of the proposed modifications. Wetland habitats associated with Buena Vista
Creek are present to the north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. Coastal sage scrub-
eucalyptus woodland is present west of the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension and to the east and
west of Segment 7. None of these communities are located within the footprints of the individual
project components. The potable water pipelines are not located adjacent to sensitive natural
communities. As discussed in CEQA Issue 1, all of the proposed modifications are located within existing
development (i.e., relocation of the storage tank site to within an enclosed reclaimed water tank facility)
or in developed roads. The limited vegetation that exists is made up primarily of non-native ruderal
(weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. Therefore, sensitive natural communities are
considered to be absent from the proposed modification sites and no direct impacts would occur.
Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad located within the reclaimed water
tank facility. Cracked soils and three plant species that typically occupy ponded areas were observed,
none of which is considered an indicator species for vernal pools (United States Army Corps of Engineers
[USACE] 1997). These were grass poly (Lythrum hyssopifolia), sand-spurrey (Spergularia sp.), and toad
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 8 of 17
July 24, 2018
rush (Juncus bufonius). The bodies of seed shrimp also were noted in this area. Compaction of the pad
and a small earthen berm around the edge of this pad are likely responsible for the observed ponding.
Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this area would not be considered federally
jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development pad, the absence of vernal pool
indicators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential for any listed species, this feature
is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter-Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the
City.
Construction activities associated with project modifications in the Segment 5 and 7 extensions could
result in potential runoff and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into
sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could
result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would be considered significant. As the potable water
pipelines are not located adjacent to sensitive natural communities, no indirect impacts from runoff and
pollutants would occur.
Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities
adjacent to undeveloped areas for the Segment 5 and 7 extensions would be controlled and reduced to
less than significant levels through compliance with the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the
Adopted IS/MND, such as implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and
compliance with other applicable regulations. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B
through Bio-1F would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into
off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, potential
impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards discussed in Section 9 of
the Adopted IS/MND and implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B through Bio-1F.
ISSUE 3: Wetlands
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the federal CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No portions of the proposed modification boundaries
contain any areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from USACE. The
proposed modifications would be constructed entirely within upland areas that do not support wetlands
or other waters of the U.S. subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of USACE. Therefore, no direct effects to
federally-protected wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would occur.
As discussed in CEQA Issue 2, evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad
located within the reclaimed water tank facility. Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this
area would not be considered federally jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development
pad, the absence of vernal pool indicators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential
for any listed species, this feature is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter-
Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the City.
The new pipeline sections analyzed in this study will be constructed entirely within existing roads
designed with curb, gutter, and storm drain features to accommodate stormwater. Therefore, runoff
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 9 of 17
July 24, 2018
from these would enter into existing storm drain facilities, which may discharge into nearby wetlands.
For example, the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension is located within a shopping center built just east
of Buena Vista Lagoon and south of Buena Vista Creek. The storage tank would be constructed on a
graded development pad, which has a small berm at the downslope edge to restrict water runoff.
Potential indirect effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may occur if runoff from
construction work areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that
discharge into downstream wetland areas.
Potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to
undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and other protective measures incorporated into the project as mandatory
requirements for regulatory compliance. These include acquisition of a Storm Water General Permit and
General Linear Utility Permit, in addition to compliance with local development standards, including the
preparation of SWPPPs and application of appropriate BMPs.
Construction activities would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California’s Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES program,
the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the
RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of
San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San
Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4 permit). Proposed modifications not falling within the
coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance with the implementing
ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water discharge controls
required under the MS4 permit.
For proposed modifications covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in
ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered
under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a SWPPP prescribing BMPs, monitoring,
inspection, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order
to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in
surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit
generally require that storm water control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their
compliance under the permit.
BMPs (e.g., berms, straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control
measures intended to control the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water
runoff, and may include measures to minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and
limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the following:
• Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under
construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and
disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized.
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 10 of 17
July 24, 2018
• Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever
active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is
provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping.
• Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of
natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by
the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels.
• Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through
the proposed modifications and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents.
• Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site
are detained (e.g., siltation basins).
Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, Bio-1E, and Bio-1F would prevent
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and
mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the incorporation of the above-
referenced protective measures, the project would not result in any adverse effects on federally-
protected wetlands and would be in conformance with CEQA and the CWA.
ISSUE 4: Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant. As discussed in the Adopted IS/MND, the biological resources analysis included a
thorough review of information pertaining to the Carlsbad HMP and Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program (MHCP), including regional corridors and habitat linkages. No known wildlife corridors, linkages,
or nursery sites occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. All of the sites
are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW, or previously graded areas.
The sites do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of any local
or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. No suitable habitat exists that would support a nursery site.
Construction and operation of the project would not be expected to adversely affect the wildlife
movement functions and values of existing habitat in the immediate vicinity of project sites. Therefore,
the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use
of wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
ISSUE 5: Local Policies and Ordinances
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. None of the proposed modifications that occur within the boundaries of the coastal zone
would impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area or other protected resources, as identified within
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 11 of 17
July 24, 2018
the approved Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; therefore, the project would not conflict with the
adopted Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of
the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant.
Projects located within Carlsbad are subject to the requirements of the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements
(HPMR) Ordinance. The HPMR requires all development to comply with the Carlsbad HMP as well as the
Implementing Agreement, the MHCP, the Natural Communities Conservation Plan and 10(a)(1)(B)
permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be permitted to occur until all processing and
permitting requirements of the HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled.
ISSUE 6: Adopted Conservation Plans
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. As evaluated in CEQA Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4, several project components could result in
potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the City’s HMP. The
CMWD is required to comply with the City’s HMP and provisions of the City Municipal Code, including
the HPMR Ordinance. Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the City
Planning Division are required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into
the project description to be consistent with the conditions of the City’s HMP. In addition, projects are
required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described in the
City’s HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely affected by the project. Avoidance
measures are proposed to ensure that potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitats are
avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required, potential impacts on sensitive species
and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the City’s HMP requirements. Implementation
of the Phase III project, including the proposed modifications, would therefore not conflict with the
adopted City’s HMP and no impacts would occur.
FEDERAL CONFORMANCE
ISSUE 1: Federal Endangered Species Act, Section 7
Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth
inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat
that are known, or have a potential, to occur on site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area?
No adverse effect. For the same reasons discussed in CEQA Issue 1, the proposed modifications do not
directly impact federally-listed species and are not likely to result in indirect impacts to these species. As
described above, the proposed modifications occur entirely within existing developed areas, which
adversely affect adjacent areas and deter their use by federally-listed species. Undeveloped areas
adjacent to some of the sites are fragmented and of low-quality, which do not offer the space and
resources required by the state- and federally-listed species known to occur in the region. Further, none
of the proposed modifications occur within undeveloped areas supporting naturalized habitat and
designated by the USFWS as Critical Habitat for federally-listed species. None of the sites support the
primary constituent elements (PCEs) of USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for any federally-listed
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 12 of 17
July 24, 2018
species. Therefore, the proposed modifications will have no effect on Critical Habitat. Further discussion
is provided below regarding potential effects of the proposed modifications on federally-listed species.
Federally-Listed Plant Species
No adverse effect. None of the 12 listed plant species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX
2013) have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the Segment 5 extensions, or
within the storage tank location. There is no suitable habitat for these federally-listed plant species in
the Area of Potential Effect (APE). No listed plant species were observed during the October 3, 2017
general biological survey. As discussed in CEQA Issue 1, listed plant species are not likely to occur in or
near the proposed modifications given the high level of disturbance and overall unsuitability of the
existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects on
federally-listed plant species are anticipated to occur as a result of proposed modifications.
Federally-Listed Animal Species
No adverse effect. None of the nine listed animal species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX
2013) have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the proposed modification
sites. There is no suitable habitat for these federally-listed animal species in the APE. No listed animal
species were observed or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers, tracks, scat,
etc.) during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Therefore, none of the nine listed animal
species have the potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves, and no direct
effects would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
However, six of the nine federally-listed species have a potential to occur within off-site habitat located
in the immediate vicinity (i.e., at locations within 100 feet) of the proposed modifications locations, as
follows. There is no potential habitat for these species:
• San Diego fairy shrimp has low potential to occur within the temporarily ponded area located on
the graded development pad, within 100 feet of the proposed storage tank location.
• Coastal California gnatcatcher has the potential to nest within off-site coastal sage scrub-
eucalyptus woodland, to the west of Tamarack Avenue along the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue
extension and the Segment 7 connection. The proposed modifications would occur within
Tamarack Avenue, and potential habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher occurs adjacent to the
roadway.
• Least Bell’s vireo has the potential to nest within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista
Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. Buena Vista Creek occurs
within 100 feet of the This species was recorded in the area in 2015 (California Department of
Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 2017).
• Light-footed clapper rail is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) within off-site
wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street
extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in 2007 (CDFW 2017).
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 13 of 17
July 24, 2018
• Southwestern willow flycatcher is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a
temporary migrant within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the
Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded approximately 2,000 feet
upstream of the area in 1984 (CDFW 2017).
• Western snowy plover is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a wintering
resident within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5
Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in 1995, but is
presumed extirpated (CDFW 2017).
Potential indirect effects on federally-listed animal species from construction of the proposed
modifications could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition,
construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of
construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may
support federally-listed animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction;
however, CMWD has committed to daytime construction hours and construction of the proposed
modifications would not require the use of nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have security
lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into sensitive biological areas.
Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would have no adverse effect.
Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration, and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas
could be potentially adverse to federally-listed species only if construction would occur during the
breeding season and if the species would be nesting in the immediate vicinity of construction activities.
As identified above, coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell’s vireo represent the only federally-
listed species with potential to nest in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. Indirect
effects on San Diego fairy shrimp could also occur as a result of construction equipment and personnel
entering into sensitive basin habitat. Potentially adverse indirect effects would not be anticipated to
occur to federally-listed species within the potential to forage (only) within adjacent habitat, such as the
light-footed clapper rail, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western snowy plover. Species with the
potential to forage (only) would only be expected to use the adjacent habitat temporarily and would be
able to relocate into alternative foraging areas without being harmed.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F, listed above, would eliminate potentially
adverse indirect effects on nesting federally-listed species. These include (Bio-1A) avoidance of nesting
birds and raptors (pre-construction surveys, marking of work areas, biological monitoring, and/or
conducting work outside of the breeding season), (Bio-1B) pre-construction biological resource surveys,
(Bio-1C) use of orange construction fencing adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially
suitable for special status species, (Bio-1D) reduction of construction-related noise, (Bio-1E) use of
construction staging areas, and (Bio-1F) contractor training. With the implementation of these
measures, there should not be any direct or indirect adverse effects to federally-listed species. Thus, the
proposed modifications would not likely adversely affect federally-listed species and the project would
be in conformance with the ESA.
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 14 of 17
July 24, 2018
ISSUE 2: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
Essential Fish Habitat
Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth
inducement that may adversely affect essential fish habitat?
No adverse effect. The new components would be constructed within disturbed and/or developed
upland areas that lack marine resources and Essential Fish Habitat regulated under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No Essential Fish Habitat occurs in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely
affect Essential Fish Habitat and would be in conformance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
ISSUE 3: Coastal Zone Management Act
Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone?
No adverse effect. The new storage tank location and the Palisades potable water pipelines are located
within the Coastal Zone. The new pipeline extensions for Segments 5 and 7 and the Flower Fields
potable water pipelines are located outside of the Coastal Zone.
Development within the coastal zone boundaries are subject to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
(LCP), the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance, and the California Coastal Act (CCA),
and would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The City’s LCP was approved and certified
by the California Coastal Commission in 1996 and the latest amendment was approved in 2016. The City
acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects within its coastal zone, with a
few exceptions. There are areas of “deferred certification” where the state retains its permitting
authority. All projects in the coastal zone would require review for consistency with the LCP and CCA
prior to issuance of a CDP, which would occur once preliminary design drawings were prepared. This
would ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the LCP; individual components would
require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that there would not be adverse impacts.
The storage tank and potable water pipelines that occur within the Coastal Zone would not adversely
affect or impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or other protected coastal resources
identified within the approved City’s LCP. The proposed modifications would not conflict with the City’s
LCP, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the
Coastal Zone Management Act.
ISSUE 4: Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Will the project affect protected migratory birds that are known, or have a potential, to occur on site, in
the surrounding area, or in the service area?
No adverse effect. The proposed modifications would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of
developed and undeveloped areas characterized by trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g.,
buildings, water tanks, etc.) that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common and sensitive bird
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 15 of 17
July 24, 2018
species, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Common bird species with the
potential to nest in the vicinity of project components include species such as California towhee
(Melozone crissalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte
anna), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and Bullock’s oriole
(Icterus bullockii). Sensitive bird species with the potential to nest include federally-listed species such as
coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell’s vireo, in addition to non-listed sensitive species such as
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s sage sparrow
(Amphispiza belli belli), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii).
Indirect effects could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of
undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest (or nests on man-made structures), such that the
disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. These potential adverse effects on nesting birds
and raptors would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1A identified within CEQA Issue 1, related to avoidance of
nesting birds and raptors, would mitigate for potentially adverse effects. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measure Bio-1A, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act.
ISSUE 5: Protection of Wetlands
Does any portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be evaluated for wetland
delineation or require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?
No adverse effect. Please refer to CEQA Issue 3 for a discussion of the proposed modifications and
wetlands. With the incorporation of the protective measures referenced in CEQA Issue 3, the project
would not result in any adverse effects on federally-protected wetlands and would be in conformance
with the CWA. These include implementation of BMPs and other protective measures incorporated into
the project as mandatory requirements for regulatory compliance (described above), and
implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, Bio-1E, and Bio-1F.
ISSUE 6: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river?
No adverse effect. None of the proposed modifications are planned on or in the immediate vicinity of
areas designated as Wild and Scenic River. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely
affect any areas designated as Wild and Scenic River and would be in conformance with the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act.
Sincerely,
Amy Mattson
Biologist
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 16 of 17
July 24, 2018
Attachments:
Figure 1: Pipeline Improvements
Figure 2: Storage Tank Relocation
Attachment A: Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Status List
Attachment B: Sensitive Species Search for Proposed Modifications
Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 17 of 17
July 24, 2018
REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. California Natural Diversity Database. RareFind 5. Data
accessed October.
Carlsbad, City of. 2004. Final Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.
Final approval November 2004, including implementing agreement and terms and conditions.
Retrieved from: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_149_579.pdf.
1996. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2010
Amendments. August 14. On-file at the City of Carlsbad and available at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/coastal/default.asp.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District. 2012a. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH No. 2012091049. Available on-file at the City of
Carlsbad. November.
2012b. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and
Recycled Water Master Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Available on-
file at the City of Carlsbad. SCH No. 2012021006. October.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2017. Update to the Biological Resources Study and IS/MND
findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project. October 13.
2013. Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Phase III Recycled Water Project. May 15.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017a. Species Lists and Occurrence Information for Multiple Species
within Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife
Office. Retrieved from:
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm, and
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/gis/cfwogis.html.
2017b. Critical Habitat Portal. Retrieved from: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/.
February 9.
2017c. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved from:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. October 2.
E
l
C
ami
n
o Re
a
l
C
arlsb
a
d Villa
g
e Driv
e
Highla
nd Drive
!"^$
A¸
M a r r o n R o a d
Marron Road
Tam arack AvenueTamarack AvenueTama ra ck Avenue
!"^$BuenaVista Creek
Segment 5
Segment 5
Flower FieldsNeighborhood
Carlsbad PalisadesNeighborhood
Segment 7
Figure 1Pipeline ImprovementsI:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-27_Carlsbad_MWD\Map\IS_MND\Fig1_PipelineImprove_2018_0718.mxd KJC-27 7/19/2018 -RPSource: Aerial Photo (SanGIS, 2014) Project Features (Kennedy Jenks 2017)K
Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND
0 2,000 Feet
Proposed Potable Water Alignments
Segment 5 2012 Alignment
Proposed Modification to Segment 5
Segment 7 2012 Alignment
Proposed Modification to Segment 7
Indirect Biology Impacts
Coastal Sage Scrub-Eucalyptus Woodland in 500-ft Buffer
D NewProposedTank
FormerProposedTank F i s h e r m a nDrive
Maritime Drive
Black Rail RoadSitio CedrelaTriton Street
New Crest Court
Poinsettia Lane
Figure 2Storage Tank RelocationI:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-27_Carlsbad_MWD\Map\IS_MND\Fig2_StorageTankRelocation_2018_0718.mxd KJC-27 7/19/2018 -RPSource: Aerial Photo (SanGIS, 2014)K
Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND
0 150 Feet
2012 Proposed Tank Location
Proposed Access Road
Inlet/Outlet Piping
New Proposed Tank Location
Drain
Indirect Biology Impacts
Nesting Trees
D Temporarily Ponded Area
Attachment A
Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office Species Status List
FEDERALLY LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND DELISTED TAXA IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CARLSBAD FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
Scientific Name Common Name
Taxon
Abbrev.
Lead
Office
State
Status
Fed.
Status
LISTING
FEDERAL REGISTER
DOCS
RECOVERY DISTRIBUTION [2]
Date
Listed
Critical Habitat [3]Other Plan
5-Year
Review
RPN
[4]LAORSDIN KESB RI IM
PLANTS * 58 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 48 TAXA
Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thornmint ACIL CFWO SE FT 13-Oct-98 f-08 2009 8X
Acanthoscyphus parishii var.goodmaniana (Oxytheca p. var. g.)[1] Cushenbury oxytheca ACPAGOCFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02 D 97 2009 9C X
Acmispon dendroideus var. traskiae (Lotus d. subsp.
traskiae) [1] San Clemente Island lotus ACDETR CFWO SE FT 11-Aug-77
Reclass
26-Jul-13 F 84 2012 15 X
Allium munzii Munz's onion ALMU CFWO ST FE 13-Oct-98 fr-13 2013 8C X
Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia AMPU CFWO FE 2-Jul-02 f-10 2010 11C X X
Arctostaphylos glandulosa
subsp. crassifolia Del Mar manzanita ARGLCR CFWO FE 7-Oct-96 2010 6C X
Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort ARPA VFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2008 2X X
Astragalus albens Cushenbury milk-vetch ASAL CFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02
CHMS
2003 D 97 2009 8C X
Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch ASBR VFWO FE 29-Jan-97 f-06 F 99 2009 2XX X
Astragalus jaegerianus Lane Mountain milk-vetch ASJA CFWO FE 6-Oct-98 fr-11
Reclass
not warranted 14-05-02 2008 5X
Astragalus lentiginosus var.
coachellae
Coachella Valley milk-
vetch ASLECO CFWO FE 6-Oct-98 f-13 2009 6C X
Astragalus magdalenae var.peirsonii Peirson's milk-vetch ASMAPE CFWO SE FT 6-Oct-98 fr-08
Delist not
warranted 17-Jul-08 2008 9X
Astragalus pycnostachyus var.
lanosissimus Ventura marsh milk-vetch ASPYLA VFWO SE FE 21-May-01 f-04 2010 6C X X
Astragalus tener var. titi coastal dunes milk-vetch ASTETI VFWO SE FE 12-Aug-98 F 05 2009 6C X X
Astragalus tricarinatus triple-ribbed milk-vetch ASTR CFWO FE 6-Oct-98 2009 14 X X
Atriplex coronata var.notatior San Jacinto Valley crownscale ATCONOCFWO FE 13-Oct-98 fr-13 2012 9C X
Baccharis vanessae Encinitas baccharis BAVA CFWO SE FT 7-Oct-96 2011 5C X
Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry BENE CFWO SE FE 13-Oct-98 f-08 2009 8X X XX
Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea BRFI CFWO SE FT 13-Oct-98 f-11 2009 8C X X X X X
Castilleja cinerea ash-gray paintbrush CACI CFWO FT 14-Sep-98 f-07 2013 8X
Castilleja grisea San Clemente Island paintbrush CAGR CFWO SE FT 11-Aug-77 Downlist 26-Jul-13 F 84 2012 14 X
Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus CEOP CFWO SE FT 13-Oct-98 f-07 2013 8C X
Cercocarpus traskiae
Catalina Island mountain-
mahogany CETR CFWO SE FE 8-Aug-97 2007 8X
Chloropyron maritimum
subsp. maritimum
(Cordylanthus maritimus
subsp. maritimus)[1] salt marsh bird's-beak CHMAM CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-78 F 85 2009 9XXX
Chorizanthe orcuttiana Orcutt's spineflower CHOR CFWO SE FE 7-Oct-96 2014 5X
Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina
San Fernando Valley
spineflower CHPAFE VFWO SE FC 25-Oct-99
CNOR Update
22-Nov-
13 NA X X
Deinandra conjugens (Hemizonia c.) [1] Otay tarplant DECO CFWO SE FT 13-Oct-98 f-02 F 04 2009 8C X
Delphinium variegatum
subsp. kinkiense
San Clemente Island
larkspur DEVAKI CFWO SE FE 11-Aug-77 F 84 2008 15 X
Dodecahema leptoceras [1]
slender-horned
spineflower DOLE CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-87 2010 7C X X X
Dudleya cymosa subsp. ovatifolia Santa Monica Mountains dudleya DUCYOVVFWO FT 29-Jan-97 F 99 2009 6XX
Dudleya stolonifera Laguna Beach live-forever DUST CFWO ST FT 13-Oct-98 2010 8X
Eremogone ursina (Arenaria
ursina) [1] Bear Valley sandwort ERUR CFWO FT 14-Sep-98 f-07 2008 8X
Eriastrum densifolium subsp.sanctorum Santa Ana River woolly-star ERDESA CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-87 2010 6C X X X
Erigeron parishii Parish's daisy ERPA CFWO FT 24-Aug-94 f-02 CHMS 2003 D 97 2009 8C X X
Eriogonum kennedyi var.
austromontanum
southern mountain wild
buckwheat ERKEAU CFWO FT 14-Sep-98 f-07 2008 9X
Eriogonum ovalifolium var.
vineum Cushenbury buckwheat EROVVI CFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02
CHMS
2003 D 97 2009 9C X
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button celery ERARPA CFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2010 9C X X
Fremontodendron mexicanum Mexican flannelbush FRME CFWO SR FE 13-Oct-98 f-07 2009 8X
Grindelia fraxino-pratensis Ash Meadows gumplant GRFRPR NFWO SR FT 20-May-85 f-85 F 90 2008 14 X
Helianthemum greenei Island rush-rose HEGR VFWO FT 13-Jul-97 F 00 2010 14 X
Lithophragma maximum San Clemente Island woodland star LIMA CFWO SE FE 8-Aug-97 F 84 2007 2X
Malacothamnus clementinus San Clemente Island
bush-mallow
MACL CFWO SE FE 11-Aug-77 Reclass
not
warranted
F 84 2012 8C X
Page 1 of 4
10/4/2017https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm
16-May-12
Monardella viminea (M.
linoides subsp. v.) [1] willowy monardella MOVI CFWO SE FE 13-Oct-98 fr-12 2012 8X
Nasturtium gambelii (Rorippa
gambelii) [1] Gambel's watercress NAGA VFWO ST FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2011 5XXX X
Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia NAFO CFWO FT 13-Oct-98 f-10 F 98 2009 8X X X
Nitrophila mohavensis Amargosa niterwort NIMO NFWO SE FE 20-May-85 f-85 F 90 2008 X
Oenothera californica subsp. eurekensis (O. avita subsp. e.)
Eureka Valley evening-
primrose
OECAEU CFWO SR FE
26-Apr-78
Proposed Delisting 27-Feb-14 F 82 2007 6X
Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass ORCA CFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2011 11C X X X
Pentachaeta lyonii Lyon's pentachaeta PELY VFWO SE FE 29-Jan-97 f-06 F 99 2008 2C X
Physaria kingii subsp.
bernardina (Lesquerella k.
subsp. b.)[1]
San Bernardino
Mountains bladderpod PHKIBE CFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02
CHMS
2003 D 97 2009 9C X
Poa atropurpurea San Bernardino bluegrass POAT CFWO FE 14-Sep-98 f-08 2008 2XX
Pogogyne abramsii San Diego mesa mint POAB CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-78 F 98 2010 8C X
Pogogyne nudiuscula Otay mesa mint PONU CFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2010 2C X
Sibara filifolia Santa Cruz Island rock-cress SIFI CFWO FE 8-Aug-97 2012 11 X
Sidalcea pedata pedate checker-mallow SIPE CFWO SE FE 31-Aug-84 F 98 2011 5C X
Swallenia alexandrae Eureka Dune grass SWAL CFWO SR FE
26-Apr-78
Proposed delisting
27-Feb-14 F-82 2007 6X
Taraxacum californicum California taraxacum TACA CFWO FE 14-Sep-98 f-08 2013 5X
Thelypodium stenopetalum slender-petaled mustard THST CFWO SE FE 31-Aug-84 F 98 2011 5C X
Trichostema austromontanum subsp. compactum Hidden Lake bluecurls TRAUCOCFWO FT 14-Sep-98 npf-07 2013 15 X
Verbesina dissita big-leaved crown beard VEDI CFWO ST FT 7-Oct-96 2010 11C X
Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree YUBR
90 day finding_14_Sept_16
INVERTEBRATES * 10 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 9 TAXA
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp VPFS SFWO FT 19-Sep-94 f-05 F 05 2007 2C X
Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp SDFS CFWO FE 3-Feb-97 f-07 F 98 2008 8C X X
Danaus plexippus plexippus Monarch butterfly DAPLPL R03 Pos. 90
DF to list 31-Dec-2014 XXXXXX X X
Dinacoma caseyi Casey's June beetle CJB CFWO FE 22-Sep-11 f-11
RPO
2013 11C X
Euphilotes battoides allyni El Segundo blue butterfly ESB CFWO FE 1-Jun-76 p-77 F 98 2008 9X
Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot butterfly QCB CFWO FE 16-Jan-97 f-09 F 03 2009 9C X X X X
Glaucopsyche lygdamus
palosverdesensis
Palos Verdes blue
butterfly PVB CFWO FE 2-Jul-80 f-80 F 84 2014 6X
Helminthoglypta (coyote)
greggi
Mohave shoulderband
snail MSS CFWO
Pos. 90
DF to list X
Lycaena hermes Hermes copper butterfly HCB CFWO FC
CAND
Assess
2013 NA X
Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Laguna Mountains skipper LMS CFWO FE 16-Jan-97 f-06 2007 3C X
Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Delhi Sands flower-loving fly DSF CFWO FE 23-Sep-93 F 97 2008 6C X X
Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp RFS CFWO FE 3-Aug-93 fr-12 F 98 2008 8C X X X X
FISH * 9 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 2 TAXA
Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker SAS CFWO SSC FT 12-Apr-00 f-10 D 14 2011 5C X X X X
Cyprinodon macularius desert pupfish DEPU R02 SE FE 31-Mar-86 f-86 F 93 2010 2C X X X
Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby TWG VFWO SSC FE 4-Feb-94 f-13
Proposed Reclass 13-Mar-
14 F 05 2007 7C X X
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni unarmored threespine stickleback UTS VFWO SE FE 13-Oct-70 wd-02 F 85 2009 6C X X X
Gila bicolor mohavensis Mohave tui chub MTC CFWO SE FE 13-Oct-70 F 84 2009 6X
Gila elegans bonytail chub BOCH R06 SE FE 23-Apr-80 f-94 2002 2012 5C X X X
Oncorhynchus mykiss
steelhead (southern
California ESU) SCSH NMFS SSC FE 5-Jan-06 f-05 F 12 3XXX
Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado Pikeminnow COPI R06 SE FE 24-Jul-85 f-94 F 02 8C X X X
Xyrauchen texanus razorback sucker RASU R06 SE FE 23-Oct-91 f-94 2002 2012 1C X X X
AMPHIBIANS * 4 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 1 TAXON
Anaxyrus californicus (Bufo microscaphus c.)[1]
arroyo toad (a.
southwestern t.) ARTO VFWO SSC FE 16-Dec-94 f-11
Proposed Reclass
Reopen
17-Oct-14 F 99 2009 8XXX XX
Batrachoseps major aridus (B. a.) [1] desert slender salamander DSS CFWO SE FE 4-Jun-73 F 82 2014 6X
Page 2 of 4
10/4/2017https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm
Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog FYLF SFWO Pos. 90 DF petition to list Jul--1-
2015
X
Rana draytonii (R. aurora d.)[1] California red-legged frog CRLF SFWO SSC FT 23-May-96 fr-10 F 02 5C X X X X X
Rana muscosa mountain yellow-legged frog (southern California DPS) MYLF CFWO SE FE 2-Jul-02 f-06 2012 3X XX
Spea
hammondii or Scaphiopus
hammondii
western spadefoot toad WST SFWO
Pos. 90
DF
petition to
list Jul--1-
2015 XXX XX
REPTILES * 3 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 1 TAXON
Actinemys marmorata Western pond turtle WPT CFWO Pos 90
DF
petition to
list 10-
Apr-2015 XXX XX
Gopherus agassizii
desert tortoise (Mojave
population DPS) DETO NFWO ST FT 2-Apr-90 f-94 R 11 2010 12C X X X
Uma inornata Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard CVFTL CFWO SE FT 25-Sep-80 f-80 F 85 2010 5C X
Xantusia riversiana island night lizard INL CFWO NA DL 11-Aug-77
Recovery/
Delisted
1-Apr-
14; F 84 2012 14 X
BIRDS * 16 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 7 TAXA
Amphispiza belli clementeae San Clemente sage sparrow SCSS CFWO SSC FT 11-Aug-77 F 84 2009 9X
Brachyramphus marmoratus marbled murrelet MAMU R01 SE FT 1-Oct-92 fr-10 F 97 2009 2C X X
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
(C. alexandrinus n.)[1]
western snowy plover
(Pacific Coast population
DPS) WSP AFWO SSC FT 5-Mar-93 fr-12 F 07 2006 3C X X X
Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo (western DPS) YBCU SFWO SE T 3-Oct-14 p-14
Reopen
comment pch 12-Nov-14 NA X X X X X X
Empidonax traillii extimus
southwestern willow
flycatcher SWFL R02 SE FE 27-Feb-95 fr-13 F 02 2014 3C X X X X X X
Gymnogyps californianus California condor CACO VFWO SE FE 11-Mar-67 f-77 F 96 2013 4C X X X
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle BAEA R03 SE DL 14-Feb-78 PDM Plan 04-Jun-10 F 86 NA X X X X X X
Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi
San Clemente loggerhead
shrike SCLS CFWO SSC FE 11-Aug-77 F 84 2009 12 X
Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican BRPE VFWO DL 4-Feb-85
Draft PDM Plan 30-Sep-09 F 83 2007 NA X X X X X X
Phoebastria albatrus short-tailed albatross STAL R07 SSC FE 31-Jul-00 F 08 2009 8XXX
Melozone crissalis
eremophilus (Pipilo crissalis
eremophilus)Inyo California towhee INCT CFWO SE FT 2-Sep-87
Proposed
Delist 04-
Nov-13 F 98 2008
Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher CAGN CFWO SSC FT 30-Mar-93 f-07
Proposed
Delist Dec-31-2014 2010 9C X X X X X
Rallus obsoletus levipes (R. longirostris l.)
light-footed Ridgway's rail (light-footed clapper rail) LFCR CFWO SE FE 8-Mar-69 F 85 2009 6XXX
Rallus obsoletus yumanensis (R. longirostris y.)Yuma Ridgway's rail (Yuma clapper rail) YUCR R02 ST FE 11-Mar-67 D 10 2006 6XXX
Sternula antillarum browni
(Sterna a. b.) [1] California least tern CLT CFWO SE FE 8-Mar-69 F 85 2006 15C X X X X X
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo LBV CFWO SE FE 2-May-86 f-94 D 98 2006 9C X X X X X X
MAMMALS * 8 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 7 TAXA
Dipodomys merriami parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo
rat SBKR CFWO SSC FE 27-Jan-98 f-02 2009 6C X X X
Glaucomys sabrinus californicus San Bernardino flying squirrel SBFS CFWO SSC NA
Pos 90D
Petition to List 1-Feb-12 NA X X
Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat SKR CFWO ST FE 30-Sep-88 12MF
delisting
not
warranted
19-Aug-10
D 97 2011 11 X X X
Page 3 of 4
10/4/2017https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm
Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter SSO VFWO FP FT 11-Aug-87
TerminateSSO
XP and
Trans
Plan F 03 9C X X X
Microtus californicus
scirpensis Amargosa vole AMVO CFWO SE FE 15-Nov-84 f-84 F 97 2009 6X
Ovis canadensis nelsoni
Nelson bighorn sheep
(Peninsular Range DPS;
Peninsular bighorn sheep) PBS CFWO ST FE 18-Mar-98 f-09 F 00 2011 9C X X X
Perognathus longimembris
pacificus Pacific pocket mouse PPM CFWO SSC FE 3-Feb-94 F 98 2010 6C X X X
Urocyon littoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox CAIF CFWO ST FE 5-Mar-04 W-05 D 12 9X
LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS
State Status: SE = endangered; ST = threatened; sde = delisted; SR = rare; SSC = species of special concern
Federal Status: FE = endangered; FT = threatened; FC = candidate for listing; P- = proposed; PW = proposal withdrawn; DL = delisted; PDM = post delisting monitoring
plan; X* = experimental population; 90D = 90-day finding; 12M = 12-month finding.
Critical Habitat: p = Proposed; f = Final; pr = Proposed Revised; fr = Final Revised.
Recovery Plan: F = Final-year published, D = Draft-year published
Distribution (historical county occurrences): LA = Los Angeles; O = Orange; SD = San Diego; IN = Inyo; KE = Kern; SB = San Bernardino; Riv = Riverside; Imp = Imperial
* Plant names format: scientific name including synonym, if any, followed by common name in parentheses [e.g. Allium munzii (Munz's onion); Eremogone ursina
(Arenaria ursina) (Bear Valley sandwort)] Animal names format: common name including name of DPS, if any, followed by scientific name (including synonyms,
if any) in parentheses [e.g. Santa Ana sucker (Catastomus santaanae); western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population DPS) (Charadrius nivosus nivosus (Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus))]
[1] Current name, followed by name still listed in CFR in parentheses. Cite "current name (older name)" form in the beginning of a document but use current name throughout.
[2] For species' distribution refer to the most recent 5-Year Review or utilize the "Distribution" link to access the ECOS Mapper.
[3] For species' critical habitat description and boundaries refer to the final critical habitat rule or utilize the "Critical Habitat" link to access the ECOS critical habitat Mapper.
[4] RPN (Recovery Priority Number; distinctions relate to degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic rank, and conflict (NA = not applicable)
LIST REVISED July 6, 2015. SEND CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO JANE HENDRON (jane_hendron@fws.gov, 760-431-9440)
Page 4 of 4
10/4/2017https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm
Attachment B
Sensitive Species Search for Proposed
Modifications
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and
Local office
Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office
(760) 431-9440
Ɠ (760) 431-5901
2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaCInformation for Planning and Consultation
Page 1 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project
level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the
species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam
upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact
the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site
conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project
.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information.
2.NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Page 2 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Pacific Pocket Mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8080
Endangered
Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus)
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3495
Endangered
critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6749
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the
critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035
Threatened
Page 3 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Amphibians
Fishes
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Arroyo (=arroyo Southwestern) Toad Anaxyrus californicus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the
critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3762
Endangered
NAME STATUS
NAME STATUS
California Orcutt Grass Orcuttia californica
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4923
Endangered
Del Mar Manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7673
Endangered
Page 4 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Encinitas Baccharis Baccharis vanessae
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3343
Threatened
Orcutt's Spineflower Chorizanthe orcuttiana
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7573
Endangered
San Diego Ambrosia Ambrosia pumila
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the
critical habitat.
Endangered
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .
1 2
Page 5 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
Page 6 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A BREEDING
SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD
ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA
SOMETIME WITHIN THE
TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A
VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE
DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD
BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE
RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE"
INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES
NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds elsewhere
Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9447
Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 31
Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9737
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 31
Page 7 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Jan 1 to Dec 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408
Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5511
Breeds elsewhere
Page 8 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds elsewhere
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3910
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9483
Breeds elsewhere
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds elsewhere
Page 9 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities
to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ “Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this
report.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is
expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the
continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Page 10 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
Black Turnstone
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Black-chinned
Sparrow
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Page 11 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Burrowing Owl
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of Conservation
Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird
Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the
continental USA)
California Thrasher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
because of the Eagle
Act or for potential
susceptibilities in
offshore areas from
certain types of
development or
activities.)
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gull-billed Tern
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Page 12 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Lawrence's
Goldfinch
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Lewis's
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Rufous
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Page 13 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Song Sparrow
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of Conservation
Concern (BCC) only in
particular Bird
Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide (CON)
(This is a Bird of
Conservation Concern
(BCC) throughout its
range in the
continental USA and
Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Page 14 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any
location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in
the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding
their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be
breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be
advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present
on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other species that
may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the
bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Page 15 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid
and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more
information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and
requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird
species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also
offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Page 16 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a
different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the
geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities
involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or
local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such
activities.
Page 17 of 17IPaC: Explore Location
7/19/2018https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/54BBMQOHRZGMPM6XCECX3ITXZ4/resources