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.