Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2018-0011; RECYCLED WATER PHASE III PIPELINE SEGMENT 5; ADDENDUM REPORT TO THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY AND ADOPTED IS-MNS FINDINGS; 2018-03-30 HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com March 30, 2018 KJC-27 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 16 March 30, 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. 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). • 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 6-inches to 8-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 have 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; 2017), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Status List (USFWS 2017a), 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 (Atkins 2012a), City of Carlsbad 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 1996), and City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (City of Carlsbad 2004). HELIX biologist Amy Mattson conducted a general biological survey on October 3, 2017, between the hours of 10:15 AM and 11:45 AM. 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 Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 3 of 16 March 30, 2018 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 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. Further discussion is provided below regarding potential effects of the proposed modifications on state- and federally-listed species. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 4 of 16 March 30, 2018 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. 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 comprised 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. 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; 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 Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 5 of 16 March 30, 2018 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, that being from 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 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 Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 6 of 16 March 30, 2018 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 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 Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 7 of 16 March 30, 2018 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 CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG 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 comprised 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 hyssopifolium), sand-spurrey (Spergularia sp.), and toad 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 Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 8 of 16 March 30, 2018 is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter-Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the City of Carlsbad. 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 Prevent 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 of Carlsbad. 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 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 Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 9 of 16 March 30, 2018 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. • 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. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 10 of 16 March 30, 2018 • 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 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 Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 11 of 16 March 30, 2018 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 of Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the HPMR Ordinance. Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the City of Carlsbad 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? 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. 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 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 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. 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 Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 12 of 16 March 30, 2018 modifications. 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 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. 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: • 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. • 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. 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 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 2017). • 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 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 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 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 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, Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 13 of 16 March 30, 2018 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 be less than significant. Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas could be potentially adverse and significant on 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 reduce potentially adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting federally-listed species to less than significant levels. With the implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications would not likely adversely affect nesting federally-listed species and the project would be in conformance with the ESA. 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? The new Approved Project 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? The new storage tank location and the Palisades potable water pipelines are located within the Coastal Zone. The new pipeline extensions for Segment 5 and 7 and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines are located outside of the Coastal Zone. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 14 of 16 March 30, 2018 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 impacts would be less than significant. 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? 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 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 would mitigate this potential adverse effect to a less than significant level. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1A, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 15 of 16 March 30, 2018 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 United States Army Corps of Engineers? 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. ISSUE 6: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river? 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 Enclosures: Figure 1: Pipeline Improvements Figure 2: Storage Tank Relocation Attachment A Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Status List Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 16 of 16 March 30, 2018 REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2017. RareFind 5. Data accessed October. Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). 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. City of Carlsbad. 2004. Final Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Final approval November 2004, including implementing agreement and terms and conditions. Available at: 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. 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 (USFWS). 2017a. Species Lists and Occurrence Information for Multiple Species within Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Available at: 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. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. February 9. 2017c. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. October 2.