CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT …...CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MARCH 12, 2010 Introduction

PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS

PREPARED FOR

City of Salinas

March 12, 2010

This document was produced on recycled paper.

CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

PREPARED FOR City of Salinas

Frank A. Aguayo, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer

200 Lincoln Avenue

Salinas, CA 93901

Tel 831.758.7427

PREPARED BY EMC Planning Group Inc.

301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C

Monterey, CA 93940

Tel 831.649.1799

Fax 831.649.8399

[email protected]

www.emcplanning.com

March 12, 2010

CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT

FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MARCH 12, 2010

Introduction

CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring

programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative

declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects.

The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of

project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant adverse

environmental effects.

The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures

presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project

approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and

thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and

enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is

designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions

of project approval are implemented.

Monitoring Program

The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the project

mitigated negative declaration. These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce

significant adverse environmental effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation

measures become conditions of project approval, which the project proponent is required to

complete during and after implementation of the proposed project.

The attached list is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures.

This monitoring checklist contains all appropriate mitigation measures in the mitigated negative

declaration.

EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

Monitoring Program Procedures

The City of Salinas shall use the attached mitigation monitoring list for the proposed project.

The monitoring program should be implemented as follows:

1. The City of Salinas is responsible for coordinating the monitoring program, including the

monitoring list. The City of Salinas is responsible for completing the monitoring list and

distributing the list to the responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the

mitigation measures.

2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for determining whether the

mitigation measures contained in the monitoring list have been complied with. Once all

mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should

submit a copy of the monitoring list to the City of Salinas to be placed in the project file. If

the mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring list should not be

returned to the City of Salinas.

3. The City of Salinas will review the list to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures

included in the monitoring list have been complied with at the appropriate time.

Compliance with mitigation measures is required for project approvals.

4. If a responsible individual or agency determines that a non-compliance event has occurred,

a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the City of Salinas within 10

calendar days, describing the non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified

period of time. If non-compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period,

construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the City of

Salinas.

2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.



Prior to Grading Activities

BIO-1. In order protect aquatic biological resources and to reduce erosion on the project site and

risk of sedimentation downstream of the Salinas River, the City of Salinas will prepare

an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for site preparation,

construction, and post-construction periods. The erosion control plan may include, but

not necessarily be limited to, the following components:

a. Limit grading to between April 16 and October 14 when stormwater runoff is less

likely;

b. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation removal to the minimum area necessary for

access and construction;

c. Cover disturbed slopes with straw mulch or jute netting after seeding or planting;

d. Stockpile topsoil from grading activities to be used at the project site for re-vegetation

purposes;

e. Cover or otherwise protect stockpiled soils during periods of rainfall;

f. Prevent storm water flow directly down unprotected slopes, devoid of vegetation, by

utilizing straw bales or diversion fencing; and

g. Ensure grading operations are observed and evaluated by a qualified engineer.

Party Responsible for Implementation: City of Salinas

Party Responsible for Monitoring: City of Salinas

� Implementation Complete

Monitoring Notes and Status:

BIO-3. Prior to grading activities within ditches that drain to the Salinas River, the City of

Salinas will obtain a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, a Streambed

Alteration Agreement from California Department of Fish and Game, and a Water

Quality (401) Certification from the RWQCB. The appropriate permit for the proposed



project is Nationwide Permit 41 for Reshaping Existing Drainage Ditches. Nationwide

Permit 41 requires Preconstruction Notification for projects proposing to disturb greater

than 500 linear feet of drainage. To qualify for this permit, plans to enhance the drainage

ditch for improved downstream water quality are required.





BIO-4. Mitigation for the disturbance of waters of the US or tributaries to waters of the US is

required as part of an Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Section 404 permit. The

standard measures from the USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for ACOE

Section 404 permits would be appropriate to avoid and minimize adverse affects to

California red-legged frog if they are present in the construction area. The standard

measures (as applicable) are presented below.

a. At least 15 days prior to the onset of activities, the name(s) and credentials of

biologists who would conduct activities specified in the following measures will be

submitted to the USFWS by the City. No project activities shall begin until the City

has received written approval from the USFWS that the biologist(s) is qualified to

conduct the work.

b. A USFWS-approved biologist will survey the work site two weeks before the onset of

activities. If California red-legged frogs, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the approved

biologist shall contact the USFWS to determine if moving any of these life-stages is

appropriate. In making this determination, the USFWS shall consider if an

appropriate relocation site exists. If the USFWS approves moving animals, the

approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the work site

before work activities begin. Only USFWS -approved biologists will participate in

activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of California red-

legged frogs.

c. Before any activities begin on a project, a USFWS-approved biologist will conduct a

training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall

include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, the importance

of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, general measures that are being

implemented to conserve the California red-legged frog as they relate to the project,



and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished. Brochures,

books and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a qualified

person is on hand to answer any questions.

d. A USFWS-approved biologist will be present at the work site until such time as all

removal of California red-legged frogs, instruction of workers, and habitat

disturbance of habitat have been completed. After this time, the City will designate a

person to monitor on-site compliance with all minimization measures. The USFWS-

approved biologist shall ensure that this individual receives training outlined in

measure c above and in the identification of California red-legged frogs. The

monitor and the USFWS-approved biologist shall have the authority to halt any

action that might result in impacts that exceed the levels anticipated by the ACOE

and USFWS during review of the proposed action. If work is stopped, the ACOE

and USFWS will be notified immediately by the USFWS -approved biologist or on-

site biological monitor.

e. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly

contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following

construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from work areas.

f. All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least

20 meters from any riparian habitat or water body. The ACOE and City will ensure

contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior to the onset of

work, the ACOE will ensure that the City has prepared a plan to allow a prompt and

effective response to any accidental spills. All workers will be informed of the

importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill

occur.

g. A USFWS-approved biologist will ensure that the spread or introduction of invasive

exotic plant species shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible.

h. Work activities shall be completed between April 1 and November 1. Should the

project proponent demonstrate a need to conduct activities outside this period, the

ACOE may authorize such activities after obtaining the USFWS approval.

i. To control erosion during and after project implementation, the City will implement

best management practices, as identified by the appropriate Regional Water Quality

Control Board.

j. A USFWS-approved biologist will permanently remove from within the project area,

any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid fishes to



the maximum extent possible. The City will have the responsibility to ensure that its

activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code.





BIO-5. No more than 30 days prior to commencement of grading or construction activities

occurring within 200 feet of trees located on and adjacent to the project area, the City

will retain a qualified biologist to conduct a tree survey to determine if active nest(s) of

protected birds are present in the trees. Areas within 200 feet of the construction zone

that are not within the control of the City will be visually assessed from the project area.

This survey will be required only if any construction would occur during the nesting

and/or breeding season of protected bird species potentially nesting in the tree (generally

March 1 through August 1). If active nest(s) are found, clearing and construction within

200 feet of the tree will be postponed or halted until the nest(s) are vacated and juveniles

have fledged and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, at the discretion of

the biologist. If construction activities are not scheduled between March 1 and August 1,

no further surveys of the tree will be required.





CR-2. The following language will be included in all contractor work specifications associated

with earth moving and construction activities issued for the proposed project:

In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation

and/or grading within the project APE, all work shall stop in the area of the subject

property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented

by a qualified archaeologist.







Prior to Construction

BIO-2 In order to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills occurring

during construction and to protect on-site and downstream water quality and habitat, the

City of Salinas will prepare a spill abatement plan and hold a pre-construction worker

orientation meeting(s) to discuss the spill abatement plan. Workers will be informed of

the importance of preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill

occur. The materials necessary for the initial response to a spill will be kept at an easily

accessible location on the project site. Construction material debris, including trash, will

not be allowed within the setback area.

The erosion control and spill abatement plans will be included as part of the final

improvement plans. Biological resources protection mitigation measures will be made

part of the specifications of the construction design documents.





BIO-6. Pre-construction surveys for daytime or nighttime roost used by bats will be conducted

30 days prior to the initiation of rehabilitation/construction activities. Surveys may be

conducted through visual assessment and/or acoustical surveys. Alternatively, the

construction schedule can be modified to initiate construction outside of the nesting

period (the nesting period is typically April – August, or at the recommendation of a

qualified biologist).

If nesting or roosting bats are found, the work schedule will be amended to allow for bats

to vacate the roosting or nesting habitat on their own. If this is infeasible, a

Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game will



be obtained in order to remove bat species. Alternative habitat will need to be provided if

bats are to be excluded from maternity roosts. If this is the case, a roost with comparable

spatial and thermal characteristics will be constructed and provided. California

Department of Fish and Game will be consulted regarding specific designs.


Parties Responsible for Monitoring: City of Salinas



During Construction CR-1. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during soil disturbing work within and

adjacent to the Aeration Lagoon APE and the entry/access road to it, so that any

remnant of cultural materials from site CA-MNT-494, which might be exposed, can be

identified and recovered. In addition, the monitor should routinely spot check soil

disturbing activities in other parts of the APE that have a potential for buried resources.

If, at any time, potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, work shall be

halted until the find can be evaluated by the monitor and/or a qualified archaeologist

and, if determined significant, until appropriate mitigation measures are formulated,

with the approval of the lead agency, and implemented.





CR-3. If human remains are found during construction within any portion of the APE, there

will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably

suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until a qualified archaeologist and the

coroner of Monterey County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are

Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission

within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person



or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native

American. The MLD may then make recommendations to the landowner or the person

responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with

appropriate dignity, the human remains and associated grave goods as provided in

Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The landowner or his authorized representative

shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with

appropriate dignity n the property in a location not subject to further disturbance if: a)

the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD

failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the

commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the

landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the

descendent, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to

provide measures acceptable to the landowner.





Ongoing Activities BIO-7. The use of continuously illuminated flood lamps that would attract birds will be avoided.

The City will ensure that the design of the security lighting system is consistent with this

requirement.







This side intentionally left blank.



CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL

WASTEWATER TREATMENT

FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS

Final Initial Study


Frank A. Aguayo, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer

200 Lincoln Avenue

Salinas, CA 93901

Tel 831.758.7427



Monterey, CA 93940

Tel 831.649.1799

Fax 831.649.8399

[email protected]

www.emcplanning.com

March 12, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. BACKGROUND............................................................... 1

B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..... 22

C. DETERMINATION......................................................... 23

D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................. 24

1. Aesthetics ......................................................................... 26

2. Agriculture Resources ........................................................ 28

3. Air Quality ....................................................................... 29

4. Biological Resources .......................................................... 32

5. Cultural Resources ............................................................ 43

6. Geology and Soils.............................................................. 46

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................... 48

8. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................. 50

9. Land Use and Planning ...................................................... 57

10. Mineral & Energy Resources .............................................. 58

11. Noise ............................................................................... 59

12. Population and Housing ..................................................... 61

13. Public Services .................................................................. 62

14. Recreation ........................................................................ 63

15. Transportation/Traffic ....................................................... 64

16. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................. 66

17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................... 68

E. SOURCES .................................................................... 70

Appendices

Appendix A Biotic Resources Report

EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.

Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location.............................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Project Vicinity .................................................................................. 5

Figure 3 Aerial and Overall Improvement Plan................................................. 7

Figure 4 Aerial of Drying Bed Improvements.................................................... 9

Figure 5 Site Photographs .............................................................................. 11

Figure 6 Drying Bed Improvements APE ....................................................... 15

Figure 7 Access Road Improvements APE...................................................... 17

Figure 8 Aeration Lagoon Sludge Removal APE ............................................ 19

Figure 9 FEMA Designated Floodplain Map.................................................. 55


A. BACKGROUND Project Title City of Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment

Facility Improvements

Lead Agency Contact Person

and Phone Number

Frank Aguayo, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer

(831) 758-7427

Date Prepared February 8, 2010

Study Prepared by EMC Planning Group Inc.


Monterey, CA 93940

Ron Sissem, Principal Planner

Janet Ilse, Biologist/Senior Planner

Christine Bradley, Associate Planner

Project Location The project site is located to the southwest of the City

of Salinas in Monterey County on the northwest side of

Davis Road approximately one-mile to the northeast of

Reservation Road, adjacent to the Salinas River.

Project Sponsor Name and Address City of Salinas

Engineering and Transportation Department

200 Lincoln Avenue

Salinas, CA 93901

General Plan Designation Monterey County: Public/Quasi-Public (Waste

Disposal)

Zoning Monterey County: Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) and

Farmlands/40

Setting

The City of Salinas (hereinafter “City”) operates an industrial wastewater conveyance system

and treatment system that serves approximately 25 agricultural processing and related industrial

businesses located in the industrial area of the City (east of Sanborn Road and south of U.S.

Highway 101). The industrial wastewater system is completely separate from the City’s domestic

sewer system. Approximately 80 percent of the industrial wastewater flows are from fresh

vegetable packers (typically washdown water used on harvested crow crops). The other 20

percent are from businesses dealing in seafood processing, refrigerated warehousing,

manufactured ice, preserves (frozen fruits, jams and jellies) and corrugated boxes.


CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

The industrial wastewater conveyance system consists of approximately 24,000 lineal feet of 27-,

33-, and 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe. The conveyance system transports industrial

wastewater to the City’s industrial wastewater treatment facility (IWTF). The IWTF is located

within unincorporated Monterey County on the northwest side of Davis Road adjacent to the

Salinas River. The IWTF was originally constructed in 1943 and has been expanded several

times, with the last major expansion in 1973 when surface aerators were added. Wastewater is

treated in a 13-acre aeration lagoon and then discharged by gravity to a series of three

percolation/evaporation ponds that have a total surface area of 110 acres. Any remaining

wastewater is disposed of in 54 shallow beds that are alternately loaded with treated effluent for

disposal by percolation and evaporation. The disposal drying beds have a design disposal rate of

1.7 million gallons per day (MGD).

The treatment facility is designed and permitted for an average daily flow of 4.0 MGD with a

peak flow of 6.8 MGD. The system operates year round with higher flows in the spring and

summer months due to the significant increase in crop processing. Figure 1, Regional Location,

shows the general location of the IWTF. Figure 2, Project Vicinity, shows the location of the

IWTF in relation to the City of Salinas. Figure 3, Aerial and Overall Improvement Plan, and

Figure 4, Aerial of Drying Bed Improvements, show existing conditions at the IWTF, including

the location of the aeration lagoon, the three percolation ponds, the drying beds and a number of

proposed improvements. Figure 5, Site Photographs, includes photographs of the IWTF site.

Project Purpose

The IWTF operates under a “Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order” issued in 2002 by

District 3 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The IWTF was designed

and permitted to allow disposal of treated wastewater to the Salinas River with proper river flow

and dilution of river water to treated wastewater. However, the 2002 RWQCB WDR prohibits

this practice. Therefore, the proposed project improvements are needed for the following

reasons:

To address the need to completely percolate or evaporate all treated wastewater.

To rehabilitate the facility to ensure it is able to operate at or near its design capacity.

To address the high ground water levels from irrigation use on adjacent agriculture fields

as the IWTF is at slightly lower elevation than the adjacent fields.

To attract agriculture-related businesses to locate in Salinas due to the need for job

creation by helping to remove constraints to utilization of existing permitted industrial

wastewater treatment capacity.


Death ValleyNational Park

152

156

Salinas

MorganHill

Hollister

680880

280

152

1

101

156

25

Gonzales

BigSur

156

85

85

101

Modesto

Merced

Oakland

99

99

17

5

San LuisReservoir

P a c i f i c O c e a n

ProjectLocation

Monterey

Carmel

Santa Cruz

San Francisco

Gilroy

5

Los Banos

580

5

101

152

80

183

59

395

152

108

120

140

41

99

Fresno

Clovis

Visalia

YosemiteNational

Park

5

198

395

Kings CanyonNational Park

SequoiaNational

Park

395

120

6

58

Santa Maria

Santa Barbara

Bakersfield

4

12

99

20 65

70

50

505

5

80

LodiVallejo 80

780

15

138

14

5

40

127

Lancaster

PalmdaleVictorville

Hesperia

101

1

1

1

1

1

NEVADA

Atascadero

Greenfield

Soledad

Coalinga

San Luis Obispo

Arroyo Grande

Madera

Mendota

Avenal

Maricopa

Lemoore

Huron

Shafter

Corcoran

Arvin

Tulare

Porterville

Lindsay

Wasco

99

43

46

4146

99

58

166

119

King City

Waterford

Oakdale

Hughson

Tracy

Lathrop

Patterson

Escalon

Gustine

Livingston

165

33

132

88

8816

49

Galt

Chowchilla

Dos Palos

Angels Camp

108

4

4

160

PaloAlto San Jose

Ceres

Turlock

Newman

StocktonSonora

Sacramento

68

Figure 1

City of Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements

Regional Location

Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2009Not to Scale




Salinas

US Highway 101

Stat

e Ro

ute

68

US Highway 101

ApproximateProject Boundary

S.Dav

is Rd

.

W.Blanco Rd.

Reservation Rd.

Figure 2


Project Vicinity

Source: EMC Planning Group 2010, Google Earth 20070 6800 feet




0 ? feet

Figure 3


Aerial and Overall Improvement Plan

Source: EMC Planning Group 2010,City of Salinas 2009

Approximate location of the sludgedewatering staging area

Approximate location of drainagechannel to be graded

Not to Scale




0 ? feet

Figure 4


Aerial of Drying Bed Improvements


Not to Scale




ApproximateProject

Boundary

2

1

4

3

6

5

Looking southwest across Pond 3.6

Looking southeast across the project site at an existing percolation pond.

5

A view of representative existing on-siteroad conditions.

4

Looking northwest across the projectsite towards Ponds 2 and 3.

3

Looking southwest across Pond 1towards Reservation Rd.

2

Looking northwest across Pond 1.1

Reservation Rd.

S.Dav

is Rd

.

Source: EMC Planning Group 2010, Google Earth 2007 Figure 5


Site Photographs





Project Description

The proposed project includes the design and implementation of various actions and

improvements needed to rehabilitate the City’s IWTF to allow it to operate at the level of

capacity for which it was designed and constructed. The proposed project would not create

treatment capacity that exceeds the currently permitted capacity as identified in the 2002 WDR.

The proposed project includes the following actions/improvements:

1. Remove and dispose of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of sludge from the IWTF

aeration lagoon.

a. Divert industrial wastewater flows to the MRWPCA pump station for

conveyance to their regional wastewater treatment plant.

b. Prepare the wet-solids staging area by grading the surface along the northern

edge of Pond 1. The wet-solid staging area is located between the north access

road and the property boundary. Refer to Figure 3, Aerial and Overall

Improvement Plan, for the approximate location of the wet-solid staging area.

c. Move wet sludge using auger dredge, pumps, discharge piping, and a polymer

feed system to pump sludge into geotextile filter bags for staging and drying.

d. Collect and decant water from the geotextile filter bags and discharge to either

Pond 1 or back into the aeration lagoon, depending on water quality.

e. Allow the wet-solids to aerate and dry.

d. Haul dried sludge to Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority’s Johnson Canyon

Landfill. If the City deems Johnson Canyon Landfill to not be an appropriate

disposal location at the time disposal is required, the City may consider other

disposal options such as the Monterey Peninsula Waste Management District’s

Marina Landfill.

2. Install energy efficiency improvements related to aeration lagoon operation

a. Install dissolved oxygen sensors in the aeration lagoon to automate the operation

of the 12 aerators for more efficient energy use.

b. Install supervisory control and data control equipment to reduce personnel

operating costs and enhance control flexibility.

c. Install “Solarbee” aerators to reduce energy use.



3. Rehabilitate drying beds to improve percolation

a. Join adjacent beds and laser leveling of beds to increase surface area.

b. Grade perimeter drainage channel along drying beds 1 through 12 for positive

flow to lower groundwater level. Refer to Figure 3, Aerial and Overall

Improvement Plan, for the approximate location of the drainage channel to be

graded.

c. Replace leaky valves.

4. Install other upgrades/improvements

a. Install an emergency generator to provide emergency power to keep the IWTF

operational during power outages.

b. Install sluice gates in ponds.

c. Improve site security, including the installation of perimeter fencing and lighting.

d. Repair and grade internal roads.

e. Replace existing electrical and pumping facilities.

f. Install transfer pump for the emergency overflow pond.

All proposed actions/improvements would take place within the existing boundaries of the

IWTF property. As discussed in the Analysis Methodology section below, consistent with a

“CEQA Plus” impact evaluation methodology, an “Area of Potential Effect” (APE) has been

defined for individual functional areas within the IWTF site within which project

rehabilitation/improvements would take place. Hence, the analysis of potential impacts focuses

largely on the physical changes within each respective APE that may result from

rehabilitation/construction activities, and on effects outside the respective APEs that are affected

by activities proposed within the APEs. Figure 6, Drying Bed Improvements APE, Figure 7,

Access Road Improvements APE, and Figure 8, Aeration Lagoon Sludge Removal APE, show

the APEs for the various functional areas of the site where project actions are proposed for

implementation. Actions/improvements that would take place within the drying bed

improvements APE are identified in item #3 above. Improvements that would take place within

the Access Road Improvements APE are largely defined in item #4d above. Improvements

within the Aeration Lagoon APE are defined primarily in items #1 and #2 above. Note that the

APE for the access roads shown in each figure encompasses only the width of the existing access

roads.

The rehabilitation/improvement actions will be implemented over time as funds become

available. At this time, the City anticipates that the project will be completed within the next

one to five years.


0 ? feet

Figure 6


Drying Bed Improvements APE


Not to Scale




0 ? feet

Figure 7


Access Road Improvements APE

Source: EMC Planning Group 2010,City of Salinas 2009Not to Scale




0 ? feet

Figure 8


Aeration Lagoon Sludge Removal APE

Source: EMC Planning Group 2010,City of Salinas 2009 Not to Scale





Analysis Methodology

The City is seeking funding from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan /Grant Program to

finance the proposed project. The SRF Loan Program is partially funded by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and therefore, the proposed project is subject to

review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Federal agencies have their own

policies on how they comply with NEPA and other federal environmental regulations, including

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the

General Conformity Rule for the Clean Air Act (CAA), among others.

The State Water Board, Division of Financial Assistance, is the responsible state agency acting

on behalf of USEPA for administering SRF Loans. Instead of NEPA, the USEPA has chosen to

use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the compliance base for the California

SRF Loan Program, in addition to compliance with ESA, NHPA, and CAA. Definition of a

project APE is required as part of this process. Collectively, these requirements are called

“CEQA Plus”. This initial study is being prepared pursuant to CEQA Plus requirements and

includes analyses required to meet these requirements.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required

The following permits may be required to implement biological resource related mitigation

measures:

Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES permit and Water Quality (401)

Certification)

Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 permit)

California Department of Fish and Game (Streambed Alteration Agreement)



B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Public Services

Agriculture Hydrology/Water quality Recreation

Air quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic

Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems

Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance

Geology/Soils Population/Housing



D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Notes

1. A brief explanation is provided for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are

adequately supported by the information sources cited in the parentheses following each

question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information

sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved

(e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer is explained

where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project

will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening

analysis).

2. All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-

site, cumulative as well a project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well

as operational impacts.

3. Once it has been determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the

checklist answers indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than

significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is

appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are

one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an

EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures

Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an

effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The

mitigation measures are described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the

effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from section XVII, “Earlier

Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses are used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA

process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document or negative

declaration. [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)] In this case, a brief discussion would identify the

following:

a. “Earlier Analysis Used” identifies and states where such document is available for

review.

b. “Impact Adequately Addressed” identifies which effects from the checklist were

within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to



applicable legal standards, and states whether such effects were addressed by

mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. “Mitigation Measures”—For effects that are “Less-Than-Significant Impact with

Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” mitigation measures are described which were

incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they

address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans,

zoning ordinances, etc.) are incorporated. Each reference to a previously prepared or

outside document, where appropriate, includes a reference to the page or pages where

the statement is substantiated.

7. “Supporting Information Sources”—A source list is attached, and other sources used or

individuals contacted are cited in the discussion.

8. This is the format recommended in the CEQA Guidelines as amended October 1998.

9. The explanation of each issue identifies:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any to reduce the impact to less than

significant.



1. AESTHETICS

Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated

Less-Than- Significant

Impact

No Impact

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (1,3)

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (1,3)

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (3,10)

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (3,14)

Comments:

a/b. The project site is not located within a designated scenic vista or scenic corridor as

defined in the Monterey County General Plan. According to Figure 35, Scenic Highway

Corridors & Visual Sensitivity, in the Monterey County General Plan, Reservation Road

is designated as a proposed scenic route. The proposed project would not create

significant physical changes relative to existing conditions and would not adversely affect

views available from Reservation Road. The project would not result in visual changes

that would preclude Monterey County from officially designating Reservation Road as a

County scenic route.

The project site is not located within the visual corridor of a state scenic highway and is

not visible from a state scenic highway.

c. The proposed project includes improvements and upgrades to existing IWTF facilities.

The proposed project does include improvements such as perimeter fencing that may be

marginally visible from Reservation Road, but all improvements are of the same

character as existing facilities located within the boundary of the IWTF. These

improvements would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or

surrounding area.



d. The proposed project includes the installation of perimeter security lighting – a new

source of light that does not currently exist at the site. The lighting must conform to the

City of Salinas Municipal Code Section 37-50.480, which outlines the regulations and

standards for outdoor lighting. Examples of required standards include the use of cutoff

optics to ensure that no light is emitted above a horizontal plane running through the

bottom of the fixture, and a height limit of 25 feet on building-mounted and freestanding

parking lot lights. This element of the project may marginally alter existing nighttime

views in the area, but with the implementation of these required standards and

regulations, the change in nighttime views is not expected to be adverse.



2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES

In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects

and in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland, lead agencies may refer to the California

Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California

Department of Conservation as an optional model. Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? (1,3)

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (1,3)

c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use? (1,3)

Comments:

a-c. Rehabilitation actions and improvements would occur only within the boundaries of the

existing IWTF and would not result in the conversion of any Prime Farmland, Unique

Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Significance. The proposed project would not

conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.



3. AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or

air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would

the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (3,5,7,12)

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (3,5,7,12)

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (3,5,7,12)

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (3,5)

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (3,5)

Comments:

a-c. The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) is responsible

for monitoring air quality in the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). The NCCAB

is designated, under state criteria, as a non-attainment area for ozone and inhalable

particulate matter (PM10). Under federal criteria, the District is at attainment (8-hour

standard) for ozone and at attainment for particulates. To achieve compliance with state

air quality standards, the MBUAPCD adopted the Air Quality Management Plan

(AQMP) in 1991 (latest revision June 2008).

The proposed project includes improvements to the IWTF that would rehabilitate the

facility, but would not result in an increase in permitted treatment capacity.

The MBUAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008) state that construction projects

using typical construction equipment, such as dump trucks and scrappers, which emit

precursors of ozone are accommodated in the emission inventories of state- and



federally-required air plans and would not have a significant impact on the attainment

and maintenance of ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards. According to the

MBUAPCD, all of this equipment is classified as typical construction equipment and the

use of it would not obstruct the attainment and maintenance of ozone Ambient Air

Quality Standards (page 5-3). The proposed project would use conventional construction

equipment.

The use of diesel powered equipment is a consideration in terms of exposure of sensitive

receptors to diesel related acrolein and odors. Acrolein is a potentially carcinogenic

substance and can be a hazard if exposure occurs for longer periods of time, usually a

year or longer. There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site and use

of diesel powered equipment will occur only during the short-term construction period.

No related adverse effects would occur.

Regarding particulate emissions, the MBUAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state

that construction activities (e.g. excavation, grading, on-site vehicles) that directly

generate 82 pounds per day or more of PM10 would have a significant impact on local air

quality. Table 5-2 of the MBUAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines states that

construction activities with minimal earthmoving that disturb less than 8.1 acres per day,

or construction activities with earthmoving (e.g. grading, excavation) that disturb less

than 2.2 acres per day are assumed to be below the 82 pounds per day threshold of

significance. Construction activities associated with the project would not disturb more

than 2.2 acres per day and consequently, potential impacts from generation of

particulates during the construction phase would be less than significant.

Though the project is not expected to exceed the construction phase particulate impact

threshold, measures will still be implemented to reduce construction phase particulate

emissions. Provisions contained in the City’s Grading Standards include measures for

erosion and control during construction activities. The Grading Standards include one

measure that specifically targets dust control. Section 13(e) states:

Dust from grading operations must be controlled. Dust control shall

consist of applying water or other dust palliatives, or covering small

stockpiles or areas, as necessary to prevent or alleviate dust nuisance

generated by construction activities. Periodic street sweeping may also

be required by the City Engineer.

Though the Grading Standards are primarily aimed at reducing impacts on water quality

from sediments contained in storm water runoff, a number of the water quality related

measures also serve a dust control function. These include measures to minimize the

area of disturbed soil to only active working areas, ensure that disturbed areas are



mulched and replanted as soon as possible, protect exposed soil surfaces from erosion by

temporary and/or permanent measures approved by the City Engineer, protect soil

stockpiles from erosion at all times, etc.

d/e. According to the MBUAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a sensitive receptor is

generically defined as a location where human populations, especially children, seniors,

and sick persons, are located where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human

exposure. These typically include residences, hospitals, and schools. According to the

guidelines, “odors are objectionable emissions of one or more pollutants (sulfur

compounds, methane, etc.) that are a nuisance to health persons and may trigger asthma

episodes in people with sensitive airways.” Nuisance odors are commonly associated

with refineries, landfills, sewage treatment, agriculture, etc. There are no sensitive

receptors within the vicinity of the project site. Further, the proposed project would not

create a new source of odor.

Clean Air Act Conformity Analysis

As part of the CEQA Plus process, a federal CAA conformity analysis is required if a project is

located in an area that is not meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards or is subject to a

maintenance plan. An analysis is then required for each criteria pollutant for which an area is

considered in nonattainment or maintenance, if the project emissions are above the “de

minimis” level. According to the MBUAPCD, in January 2009, the NCCAB was classified in

attainment for all federal standards (http://www.mbuapcd.org/mbuapcd/pdf/Attainment_

Status_January_2009.doc). Consequently, a federal CAA conformity analysis is not required.

The MBUAPCD is currently subject to the 2007 Federal Maintenance Plan for Maintaining the

National Ozone Standard in the Monterey Bay Region, which was prepared to maintain the

federal ozone standard in the NCCAB. Emissions related to projects similar to the proposed

project have been accommodated for in the 2007 Federal Maintenance Plan for Maintaining the

National Ozone Standard in the Monterey Bay Region and would be considered below the “de

minimis” level (Jean Getchell, telephone interview, June 19, 2009).



4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. 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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,2,6,9,10,16)

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,2,6,9,10,16)

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? (1,2,6,10,16)

d. 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 native wildlife nursery sites? (1,2,6,10,16)

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (1,2,6,11)

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (1,2,6)

Comments:

a-d. In August 2009, a biotic resources assessment entitled Biotic Resources Assessment Industrial

Wastewater Treatment Plant, Salinas, California, was prepared by EMC Planning Group for



the project (hereinafter referred to as the “Biotic Resources Report”). The Biotic

Resources Report is included as Appendix A. The report identifies existing conditions

and includes information needed to determine whether or not the proposed project may

have a significant impact on biotic resources. Where potentially significant impacts have

been identified, mitigation measures are provided whose implementation would reduce

impacts to a less than significant level. The information in this section is taken directly

from the Biotic Resources Report.

A background data search was conducted prior to a field investigation of the project area

to determine the potential for sensitive habitats and rare species to occur in the project

area. Surveys were conducted by Janet Ilse, Biologist/Senior Planner with EMC

Planning Group, Inc. and Dana Bland, Dana Bland and Associates on May 19, June 3,

June 15, and June 17, 2009. The assessment concluded that special status plants and

wildlife species may potentially occur within the project vicinity and may potentially

occur within the project area. A complete list of special status species with the potential

to occur within the project vicinity may be found in the Biotic Resources Assessment.

Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats. The following is a description of the vegetation and

wildlife habitats found on the property, which include riverine aquatic, riparian

scrub/woodland, California annual grassland, and disturbed/developed land.

Riverine Aquatic. The Salinas River originates in San Luis Obispo County and meanders

approximately 155 miles through the relatively level Salinas Valley before flowing into

Monterey Bay. The Salinas River flows year-round although primarily below-surface

during the summer months. Emergent aquatic vegetation present within slow-moving

areas within the channel include cattail (Typha sp.), tule (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis),

and watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum).

Amphibians such as the Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla) breed in small isolated pools and

both native and non-native species of fish are known to occur in the stream. The river

has been designated critical habitat for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Additional

species that may occur include Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), Sacramento

squawfish (Ptychocheilus gradis), hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), and prickly sculpin (Cottus

asper). Garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.), belted kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon) and common

mergansers (Mergus merganser) forage on the smaller species of fishes and amphibians

found in the river.

Riverine aquatic habitat is a locally and regionally limited resource and is protected by

state and local regulations. Although no direct modifications to riverine aquatic habitat

are proposed as part of the project, indirect impacts could occur through erosion of

adjacent lands and downstream sedimentation, particularly during activities to improve



the access road parallel to the River corridor and during grading within drainage

channels leading to the River. Impacts to riverine aquatic habitat during construction are

considered potentially significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measures

would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

BIO-1. In order protect aquatic biological resources and to reduce erosion on the project site and

risk of sedimentation downstream of the Salinas River, the City of Salinas will prepare an

erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for site preparation,

construction, and post-construction periods. The erosion control plan may include, but not

necessarily be limited to, the following components:


likely;

b. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation removal to the minimum area necessary

for access and construction;


d. Stockpile topsoil from grading activities to be used at the project site for re-

vegetation purposes;


f. Prevent storm water flow directly down unprotected slopes, devoid of vegetation, by

utilizing straw bales or diversion fencing; and

g. Ensure grading operations are observed and evaluated by a qualified soils

engineer.

BIO-2. In order to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills occurring during

construction, and to protect on-site and downstream water quality and habitat, the City of

Salinas will prepare a spill abatement plan and hold a pre-construction worker orientation

meeting(s) to discuss the spill abatement plan. Workers will be informed of the importance

of preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur. The

materials necessary for the initial response to a spill will be kept at an easily accessible

location on the project site. Construction material debris, including trash, will not be

allowed within the setback area.


improvement plans. Biological resources protection mitigation measures will be made part

of the specifications of the construction design documents.



Riparian Scrub / Woodland. The western boundary of the project site consists of a riparian

corridor along the Salinas River. A gravel and/or dirt road maintained for access is

located along the entire edge of the riparian corridor. The riparian corridor supports a

diversity of vegetation and provides valuable wildlife habitat. The dominant plant

species in this corridor include willow thickets (Salix sp.) with scattered Fremont’s

cottonwood (Populus fremontii).

Non-native annual grasses and forbs dominate open areas in the riparian woodland

habitat and the edge between riparian woodland habitat and the access road. Common

species include oat (Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), thistles (Centaurea

solstitialis, Cirsium vulgare, Silybum marianum), mallow (Malva spp.), giant reed (Arundo

donax), and mustards (Brassica spp).

The scattered oak and cottonwood trees provide roost and nesting sites for raptors and

other bird species, and the canopy contributes to its value as a corridor for wildlife.

White-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica

coronata), bushtits (Psaltriparus minimus), scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens), black

phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and northern flickers (Colaptes auratus) are likely inhabitants

of the riparian vegetation. Grasses and forbs in the riparian understory harbor insects

and provide seed and nesting material for sparrows, finches, and small mammals.

Riparian woodland is a locally and regionally limited resource and is protected by state

and local regulations. Direct impacts to riparian habitat, such as the removal of

vegetation reduce the functional value of the riparian habitat. The Monterey County

General Plan includes several riparian protection policies, including 16.2.3, which

requires a minimum 200 foot setback from a riverbank. The project site is currently

developed within 200 feet of riparian vegetation and the proposed project would not

extend beyond what is currently being maintained. No tree removal is proposed. With

the implementation of measures BIO-1 and BIO-2, above, impacts to riparian woodland

are not expected. No additional mitigation measures are necessary.

California Annual Grassland Series (Ruderal). The project area contains a variety of

disturbed areas that have been affected by previous activities. These disturbed areas

support a mixture of ruderal (weedy) species, dominated by non-native annual grasses

and forbs. Dominant species in these areas include mustard (Brassica sp.) ripgut brome

(Bromus diandrus) wild oats (Avena sp.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), poison

hemlock (Conium maculatum), and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium). These

ruderal areas in general provide marginal wildlife habitat, but some of the more extensive

open areas could support populations of lizards and small mammals, which could

provide a prey base for raptors, snakes, and other predators.



Disturbed/Developed Land. Bare land and highly disturbed areas occur along the

roadways, as part of the wastewater treatment plant facility, and are also associated with

the drying beds. Herbaceous vegetation is dominated by a variety of ornamental and

weedy plant species. Wildlife present within developed habitats is typically common and

widespread due to adaptability to urban environments, however due to the proximity of

the Salinas River native wildlife species are expected to at least occasionally visit the

disturbed habitats.

Wetlands/Waters of the U.S. Potential wetlands and waters of the U.S. were identified

adjacent to and on the project site. These include the Salinas River and drainage

channels leading to the Salinas River. These channels are utilized primarily for

transportation of agricultural runoff and stormwater and are frequently inundated. The

determination of jurisdiction over canals and drainage ditches as “Waters of the U.S.” is

based on the interpretation of the definition of tributary waters decided in the court case

Headwaters vs. Talent Irrigation District (2001). The Talent decision maintains that ditches

that do not meet all three of the wetland criteria (hydric soils, hydrophytic plants, and

hydrology) but have water flow characteristics and flow into regulated waters

downstream may now be under ACOE jurisdiction. The ACOE may consider some

segments of a ditch “potentially jurisdictional” and some segments “potentially non-

jurisdictional.” Segments that would be considered jurisdictional are those that connect

to a water body of the U.S. (a stream, wetland, or other body of water). This connection

may be through surface flow or an enclosed storm system.

The proposed project includes disturbance to ditches conveying water to the Salinas

River as part of the improvements to improve the function of the facility drying beds.

Impacts to jurisdictional features are considered potentially significant. Implementation

of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant

level.

Mitigation Measure

BIO-3. Prior to grading activities within ditches that drain to the Salinas River, the City of

Salinas will obtain a Section 404 permit from the ACOE, a Streambed Alteration

Agreement from CDFG, and a Water Quality (401) Certification from the RWQCB. The

appropriate permit for the proposed project is Nationwide Permit 41 for Reshaping

Existing Drainage Ditches. Nationwide Permit 41 requires Preconstruction Notification

(PCN) for projects proposing to disturb greater than 500 linear feet of drainage. To qualify

for this permit, plans to enhance the drainage ditch for improved downstream water quality

are required.



Special Status Species. Special status species generally occur in relatively undisturbed

areas and are largely found within unique vegetation communities and/or habitats such

as vernal pools or alkali flats. Tables identifying the species known to occur within the

project vicinity and an assessment of their likelihood to occur within the project area is

included in the Biological Resources Report. This table was supplemented with a search

of the USFWS special status species list. The only species in the USFWS list that is not

included in tables found in the Biological Resources Report is the San Joaquin kit fox.

The USFWS specifies list can be found at the back of the Biological Resources Report.

The dominance of non-native annual and perennial plant species and frequent

disturbance from maintenance activities likely preclude the presence of most special

status species, however based on the field surveys suitable habitat for California red-

legged frog, Coast range newt, steelhead, Monterey roach, Western pond turtle, nesting

migratory birds and raptors, and roosting bats was identified. The site is developed and

adjacent areas are primarily in agriculture use. The site does not contain suitable habitat

for the San Joaquin kit fox, whose range in Monterey County is largely limited to

undeveloped foothills.

California red-legged frog. The California red-legged frog is listed by the USFWS as

threatened and by CDFG as a “Species of Special Concern.” California red-legged frogs

occur in aquatic habitats with deep pools and emergent vegetation. This species is found

near perennial water during the dry season and can disperse long distances away from

water during and after winter rains. Recorded observations of California red-legged frog

have been documented along tributaries to and the Salinas River itself.

The ponds and ditches within the project area were analyzed during two daytime and

two nighttime surveys. No California red-legged frogs were observed during any of the

surveys, however, based on an assessment of the habitat present, the proximity of the

Salinas River, and the amphibians observed, it was determined that the project area

could provide suitable habitat for a small number of California red-legged frogs

undetectable during the two daytime and nighttime surveys. Due to frequent

management of the ponds and ditches and the lack of suitable vegetation, breeding

habitat is limited for California red-legged frog. Implementation of the following

mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to resident or migratory frogs to a

less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure


required as part of an ACOE Section 404 permit. The standard measures from the

USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for ACOE Section 404 permits would be



appropriate to avoid and minimize adverse affects to CRLF if they are present in the

construction area. The standard measures (as applicable) are presented below.

a. At least 15 days prior to the onset of activities, the name(s) and credentials of

biologists who would conduct activities specified in the following measures will be

submitted to the USFWS by the City. No project activities shall begin until the

City has received written approval from the USFWS that the biologist(s) is

qualified to conduct the work.

b. A USFWS-approved biologist will survey the work site two weeks before the onset

of activities. If California red-legged frogs, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the

approved biologist shall contact the USFWS to determine if moving any of these

life-stages is appropriate. In making this determination, the USFWS shall

consider if an appropriate relocation site exists. If the USFWS approves moving

animals, the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from

the work site before work activities begin. Only USFWS -approved biologists will

participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of

California red-legged frogs.

c. Before any activities begin on a project, a USFWS-approved biologist will conduct

a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall

include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, the

importance of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, general measures that

are being implemented to conserve the California red-legged frog as they relate to

the project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.

Brochures, books and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a

qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.

d. A USFWS-approved biologist will be present at the work site until such time as all


disturbance of habitat have been completed. After this time, the City will

designate a person to monitor on-site compliance with all minimization measures.

The USFWS-approved biologist shall ensure that this individual receives training

outlined in measure c above and in the identification of California red-legged frogs.

The monitor and the USFWS-approved biologist shall have the authority to halt

any action that might result in impacts that exceed the levels anticipated by the

ACOE and USFWS during review of the proposed action. If work is stopped, the

ACOE and USFWS will be notified immediately by the USFWS -approved

biologist or on-site biological monitor.



e. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly


construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from work areas.

f. All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at

least 20 meters from any riparian habitat or water body. The ACOE and City

will ensure contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior

to the onset of work, the ACOE will ensure that the City has prepared a plan to

allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers will be

informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to

take should a spill occur.

g. A USFWS-approved biologist will ensure that the spread or introduction of

invasive exotic plant species shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible.




i. To control erosion during and after project implementation, the City will

implement best management practices, as identified by the appropriate Regional

Water Quality Control Board.

j. A USFWS-approved biologist will permanently remove from within the project

area, any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid

fishes to the maximum extent possible. The City will have the responsibility to

ensure that its activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game

Code.

Coast Range newt. The Coast Range newt is a state listed species of concern. Coastal

drainages from Mendocino County south through the Coast Range to the western slope

of the Peninsular ranges in San Diego County. Lives in terrestrial habitats and will

migrate over 1 km to breed in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. One dead

newt was identified during the surveys. Although full identification to species was not

possible given the condition, based on the known range of the species it is assumed that

the individual was a Coast Range newt. The loss of individuals of this species is

considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of measures BIO-1, BIO-2,

and BIO-4 would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. Additional

measures are not necessary.

Steelhead. The steelhead is federally listed as threatened, and is state listed as a species of

concern. The steelhead is an anadromous form of rainbow trout that migrates upstream

from the ocean to spawn in the late fall or early winter, when flows are sufficient to allow



them to reach suitable habitat in far upstream areas. Spawning occurs between

December and June in clear, cool, perennial sections of relatively undisturbed streams.

Preferred habitat includes streams with a dense canopy cover that provides shade, woody

debris, and organic matter. Steelhead may be present in small numbers in the Salinas

River however yearly flows in the lower reaches of the river are extremely variable and

water temperatures are inhospitably high during low-flow periods. The proposed project

does not propose encroachment into the river corridor and the implementation of

measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to this species to a less than

significant level. Additional measures are not necessary.

Monterey Roach. Monterey roach is listed as a CDFG “Species of Special Concern.” The

Monterey roach is a small minnow found primarily in small intermittent tributaries in

coastal watersheds. The Monterey roach is known to occur in the Salinas River

watershed and may occur in the reach within the project area. The proposed project does

not propose encroachment into the river corridor and the implementation of measures

BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to this species to a less than significant

level. Additional measures are not necessary.

Western pond turtle. Western pond turtle is listed as a CDFG “Species of Special

Concern.” Preferred habitat for this species includes calm waters such as streams or

pools with vegetated banks and basking sites such as logs or rocks. This species also

needs basking sites and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for

egg-laying. Suitable basking habitat is present in a number of locations along the Salinas

River. Potential nesting habitat could occur where relatively undisturbed herbaceous

vegetation is present. The proposed project does not propose encroachment into the river

corridor and the implementation of measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential

impacts to this species to a less than significant level. Additional measures are not

necessary.

Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors. Trees present within the riparian corridor along the

Salinas River have the potential to provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory

birds, such as Cooper’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite,

and red-tailed hawk, which are known in the project vicinity. Birds may nest in trees and

shrubs or on the ground. A total of 836 bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act and the CDFG (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/mbta/

mbtandx.html). Although no nesting activity was observed during the site surveys,

discussions with plant manager indicated that nesting occurs within the riprap

surrounding the ponds and vegetation along the drainage ditches.

Trees located along the Salinas River have the potential to provide nesting habitat for

raptors and migratory birds. No evidence of nesting activity was observed in the trees



during site investigations. However, if active nest(s) of protected bird species should

occur in the trees, any construction and site preparation activities, if conducted during

the nesting season, could result in the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. The

loss of individuals of these species or abandonment of their nests would be a significant

impact. Implementation of the following measure would reduce the potential impact to a

less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure


occurring within 200 feet of trees located on and adjacent to the project area, the City will

retain a qualified biologist to conduct a tree survey to determine if active nest(s) of protected

birds are present in the trees. Areas within 200 feet of the construction zone that are not

within the control of the City will be visually assessed from the project area. This survey

will be required only if any construction would occur during the nesting and/or breeding

season of protected bird species potentially nesting in the tree (generally March 1 through

August 1). If active nest(s) are found, clearing and construction within 200 feet of the tree

will be postponed or halted until the nest(s) are vacated and juveniles have fledged and

there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting, at the discretion of the biologist. If

construction activities are not scheduled between March 1 and August 1, no further surveys

of the tree will be required.

Roosting Bats. Trees present within the riparian corridor along the Salinas River can

provide roosting sites for bats such as the hoary bat. Additionally, bats may forage over

water features at both the Salinas River and the treatment ponds. Although no bats were

identified during the survey, trees present on the project site have the potential to provide

roosting habitat. If there were active roosts of protected bat species present, construction

and site preparation activities could result in the abandonment of an active roosting site

or nest by the adults. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce

the potential impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

BIO-6. Pre-construction surveys for daytime or nighttime roost used by bats will be conducted 30

days prior to the initiation of rehabilitation/construction activities. Surveys may be

conducted through visual assessment and/or acoustical surveys. Alternatively, the

construction schedule can be modified to initiate construction outside of the nesting period

(the nesting period is typically April – August, or at the recommendation of a qualified

biologist).

If nesting or roosting bats are found, the work schedule will be amended to allow for bats to

vacate the roosting or nesting habitat on their own. If this is infeasible, a Memorandum of



Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game will be obtained in

order to remove bat species. Alternative habitat will need to be provided if bats are to be

excluded from maternity roosts. If this is the case, a roost with comparable spatial and

thermal characteristics will be constructed and provided. California Department of Fish

and Game will be consulted regarding specific designs.

Wildlife corridors provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing species richness

and diversity. In developing areas that contain defined movement corridors and/or are

continuous with adjacent open spaces areas, such as the undeveloped areas adjacent to

the property, wildlife corridors between natural areas take on added importance by

providing cover, water, food, and breeding sites. The proposed project would place

development near a known migration route for a number of migratory bird species.

Lighting, tall buildings and antennae in particular pose potential dangers to migratory

birds. Lighting is the only proposed project component that could adversely affect these

species. The lighting related effects of development within the project area on waterbirds

and their movement patterns could be potentially significant if lighting is not properly

designed. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact

to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure

BIO-7. The use of continuously illuminated flood lamps that would attract birds will be avoided.

The City will ensure that the design of the security lighting system is consistent with this

requirement.

e. Ordinances contained in Title 21 of the Zoning Ordinance for the County of Monterey

require the preservation of native trees in the County. No trees would be removed as part

of this project. No mitigation is necessary.

f. No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other

approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans include the proposed right-

of-ways. No impacts to a plan are expected.



5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in section 15064.5? (13)

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5? (13)

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (13)

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (13)

Comments:

a/b/d. To evaluate cultural resource conditions within the project APE, Archaeological

Consulting prepared an archaeological assessment for the proposed project. The

assessment, completed in September 2009, is entitled Phase I Archaeological Assessment for

the Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements Project, Salinas, Monterey

County, California. In summary, Archaeological Consulting determined that no listed

historic resources are located within or adjacent to the APEs described in Figures 6, 7

and 8. The records search showed one cultural resource, prehistoric archaeological site

CA-MNT-494, recorded within the project site, in the area now containing the aeration

lagoon. This area is within the Aeration Lagoon APE as shown in Figure 8. This

archaeological resource, which was greatly disturbed, if not totally destroyed, by the

1972 construction of the aeration lagoon, is the only cultural resource recorded within

project APE. The site was recorded in 1973 by Breschini and Howard and was described

as a slight midden in which several burials, probably four individuals, were uncovered by

tractors during pond construction. No other cultural resources have been recorded within

one-half mile the APE.

A field assessment was completed by Mary Doane, B.A., on October 22, 2009. A driving

overview of the facility was undertaken, with a pedestrian examination around the

recorded location of archaeological site, CA-MNT-494. At the time of the field

assessment, the project area was fully developed and most of the native soil in the APE



lay under existing improvements, including pavement and water. Previously undisturbed

soil was virtually nonexistent in the project site. The roadway levees provided a view of

soil on the outside of the aeration lagoon and settling ponds. Soil was also visible in the

perimeter drainage ditches, the overflow pond, and many of the drying beds.

Based upon the background research, Native American consultations, and the field

assessment, the archaeological assessment concluded that a potentially significant

cultural resource was recorded within the project APE. It is believed that prehistoric site

CA-MNT-494 was largely destroyed during construction of the aeration lagoon. The

road repair and sludge removal operations that are part of the proposed project are

unlikely to impact any potential remnant of this prehistoric site. Road repair would affect

only the surface of the road at the top of the levee and sludge accumulated over time

would be removed from the bottom of the engineered lagoon to recover storage capacity

that has been lost over time due to the accumulation.

Due to the location of the recorded archaeological site with the Aeration Lagoon APE,

mitigation will be implemented to address the potential that unidentified cultural

resources could be uncovered in this area or within other portions of the APE during

construction. The mitigations are as follows:

Mitigation Measures

CR-1. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present during soil disturbing work within and

adjacent to the Aeration Lagoon APE and the entry/access road to it, so that any remnant

of cultural materials from site CA-MNT-494, which might be exposed, can be identified

and recovered. In addition, the monitor should routinely spot check soil disturbing

activities in other parts of the APE that have a potential for buried resources. If, at any

time, potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, work shall be halted until the

find can be evaluated by the monitor and/or a qualified archaeologist and, if determined

significant, until appropriate mitigation measures are formulated, with the approval of the

lead agency, and implemented.

CR-2. The following language will be included in all contractor work specifications associated

with earth moving and construction activities issued for the proposed project:

In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation

and/or grading within the project APE, all work shall stop in the area of the subject

property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented by

a qualified archaeologist.

CR-3. If human remains are found during construction within any portion of the APE, there will

be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected

to overlie adjacent human remains until a qualified archaeologist and the coroner of



Monterey County are contacted. If it is determined that the remains are Native American,

the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The

Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons it believes to be

the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD may

then make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation

work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains

and associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The

landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human

remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity in a location not subject to

further disturbance if: a) the Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a

MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified

by the commission; b) the descendent identified fails to make a recommendation; or c) the

landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendent,

and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures

acceptable to the landowner.

c. No unique geologic or paleontological features exist within the project APE. No impacts

would occur.

Native American Consultation

Native American consultation for this project included a Sacred Lands File search

through the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento. The Commission

then provided a list of locally affiliated Native Americans for additional consultation.

Letters were written to each of these consultants, with follow-up by email, where

possible. Telephone calls were made to those from whom a response was not received

within two weeks. A summary of the Native American consultation efforts and findings

are included in the Phase I Archaeological Assessment for the Salinas Industrial Wastewater

Treatment Facility Improvements Project, Salinas, Monterey County, California report. A copy

will also be provided to the Native American Heritage Commission for its records.



6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

(1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (1,2,3)

(2) Strong seismic ground shaking? (1,2,3)

(3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (1,2,3)

(4) Landslides? (1,2,3)

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (1,2,3,12)

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? (1,2,3)

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? (1,2,3)

Comments:

a/c/d. The project would not result in the construction of above-ground habitable structures or

buildings and would not expose people or structures to any substantial adverse effects

involving earthquake faults, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or

expansive soils.



b. Potential for soil erosion may exist in association with the grading and trenching

activities along the existing roadways and trenches. Any potential related effects would

be mitigated by implementation of the City’s Grading Ordinance, which contains actions

that must be implemented during construction to minimize potential soil erosion.

Potential erosion effects will also be mitigated through implementation of mitigation

measure BIO-1, which calls for the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention

plan, combined with the fact that the project must be consistent with National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System requirements as described in Section 8, Hydrology and

Water Quality. The grading and repairs associated with the existing internal roadways

would occur completely within the existing sections of these roadways and no increase in

exposure of soils to erosion is expected.



7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (3)

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (3)

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (3)

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (4)

e. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (1,3)

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1,3)

g. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands area adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (1,3)

Comments:

a-c. The proposed project includes rehabilitation and upgrades to the IWTF. None require

the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. The IWTF treats industrial



wastewater flows from fresh vegetable packers and other businesses dealing with seafood

processing, refrigerated warehousing, manufactured ice, preserves, and corrugated boxes

and the flows are not hazardous in nature. The project includes the one-time transport of

mechanically pressed dried sludge to a licensed solid waste disposal facility, most likely

Johnson Canyon Landfill. The sludge is not hazardous in nature.

d. The APEs contain no listed hazardous materials sites (EnviroStor 2009).

e. There are no private airstrips in the immediate vicinity of the project site.

f. The proposed project would not impair the implementation or physically interfere with

an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, as it would not

create impediments to response or evacuation plans, nor create a population increase or

introduce facilities that would require alteration of either type of plan.

g. There are no wildland fire hazard areas in the vicinity of any of the project site.



8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (3,16)

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., would the production rate of preexisting nearby wells drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?) (3)

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (3)

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (3)

e. Create or contribute run-off water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? (3)

f. With regards to NPDES compliance:

(i) Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? (3,16)

(ii) Potential impact of project post-construction activity on storm water runoff? (3)




Impact



Impact

No Impact

(iii) Potential for discharge of storm water from material storage areas, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? (3)

(iv) Potential for discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit? (3,16)

(v) Potential for the discharge of storm water to cause significant harm on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies? (3,16)

(vi) Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can cause environmental harm? (3)

(vii) Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? (10,13,14,15)

g. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (3)

h. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (3,15)

i. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (3,15)

j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (1)

Comments:

a/f. According to the Biotic Resource Assessment contained in Appendix A, potential

wetlands and waters of the U.S. were identified adjacent to and on the project site. These



include the Salinas River and drainage channels leading to the Salinas River. Erosion

resulting from construction activities could potentially impair the beneficial uses of the

waters or areas that provide water quality benefit, or cause significant harm on the

biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies.

Water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Program, which was established by the Clean Water Act. The NPDES

Program seeks to control and reduce pollutants entering water bodies from both point

sources and non-point source discharges. The State Water Resources Board administers

the NPDES Program in California. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control

Board (RWQCB) issues and enforces NPDES permits for discharges to water bodies in

the Monterey Bay.

Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a

notice of intent to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction Permit for

discharges of storm water associated with construction activities. The proposed project

would disturb more than one acre of land. Therefore, the City will obtain a State

NPDES General Construction Permit. The City will prepare and implement a Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan that includes storm water “Best Management

Practices” to control runoff, erosion, and sedimentation for all portions of each APE that

are disturbed during construction. Implementation of the Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan will ensure consistency of the project with NPDES requirements. The

NPDES requirements, along with mitigation measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, and BIO-4,

will reduce the level of the impact from runoff related to construction to less than

significant.

b. The proposed project would not create a new, permanent source of demand for water,

nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge, as no new impervious surfaces would

be created.

c-e/g. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns on the

site or create any new impervious surfaces. Therefore, it would not permanently alter

existing surface runoff conditions or create new sources of storm water runoff.

h-j. According to maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

almost the entire project site, with the exception of the aeration lagoon, is located within

FEMA flood zone AE that is associated with potential flooding on the Salinas River.

Floodplain AE is defined as the base flood plain where flood plain elevations are

provided and there is a one-percent chance of expecting a flood each year. The project

would not place habitable structures in a 100-year flood zone, create above-ground



structures that could impede flood flows, or expose new structures to flood hazards.

There are no tsunami or seiche hazards in the vicinity of any of the project site.

If any portion of an APE is within a 100-year flood hazard area, a description of the

floodplain, a floodplain map, a floodplain assessment, and a description of any measures

that would minimize flood damage are needed to ensure consistency with the CEQA

Plus process. As mentioned above, nearly the entire project site is located within a 100-

year floodplain as mapped on Panel 0215G of the Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared

by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Figure 9, FEMA Designated

Floodplain Map, shows the floodplain in relation to the project site. No habitable

structures or significant above-ground structures would be constructed. There would be

no potential public safety hazards and minimal potential that flood flows would be

impeded. No measures or project design modifications are necessary to minimize or

avoid flood damage.





Approximate Project BoundarySource: EMC Planning Group 2010, FEMA 2010

Figure 9


FEMA Designated Floodplain Map

? feetNot to Scale FEMA Designated Floodplain





9. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Conflict with the Salinas General Plan? (1,2,3,17)

b. Conflict with the Salinas Zoning Code? (1,3,14)

c. Conflict with applicable precise plans? (1,3)

d. Conflict with the adopted Sphere of Influence? (1,3)

e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? (1,3)

f. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1,3)

Comments:

a-f. The proposed project would not result in any above ground physical changes in the

environment that might otherwise have the potential to divide an established or planned

community. The project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,

regulation, or the Salinas Zoning Code. The proposed improvements are consistent with

the general plan and current City documentation regarding improvement planning for

the City’s industrial wastewater treatment system. The project does not conflict with the

adopted Sphere of Influence. The improvements are being proposed in part to ensure

that the wastewater treatment plant is capable of operating at its maximum existing

permitted capacity. This will help accommodate projected increases in demand for

industrial wastewater treatment result from build out of the general plan and from the

proposed Salinas Ag-Industrial Center. The improvements would not remove an existing

impediment to growth that has not already been contemplated and evaluated by the City.

There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that

apply to land with any of the APEs.



10. MINERAL & ENERGY RESOURCES

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Result in loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (2)

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land-use plan? (2)

Comments:

a/b. According to the City of Salinas General Plan EIR (general plan EIR), there are no known

mineral resources located within any of the project segments (general plan EIR, page

5.10-5). Therefore, the proposed project would have no effects on mineral resources.



11. NOISE

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies? (1,3,10,14)

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (1,3)

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (1,3,14)

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (1,3,14)

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1,3)

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (1,3)

Comments:

a/c/d. The project site is located adjacent to the Salinas River and is surrounded on all other

sides by agricultural uses. There are no noise sensitive uses within the vicinity of the site.

On-site short-term noise from construction activities would not have adverse impacts.

Truck traffic that transports dried sludge to an off-site disposal facility (likely Johnson

Canyon Landfill or the Monterey Regional Waste Management District Landfill in

Marina) will create an incremental increase in noise level along the roads travelled.

However, as described below in Section 15, Transportation/Traffic, the average number

of truck trips per day will be quite low, about 20 per day, or 2.5 per hour and the roads



that are travelled are likely to be rural routes along which few if any noise sensitive uses

are located. Further, the increase will be short-term and temporary in nature and should

not result in significant impacts on any noise sensitive uses.

b. The equipment to be used for construction purposes is common and would not be a

source of excessive groundborne vibration.

e/f. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, or within the vicinity of a

public airport or private airstrip.



12. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (3)

b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1,2,3,17)

c. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, especially affordable housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (3)

d. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (3)

Comments:

a. The proposed project is a short-term construction project and would not result in an

increase in population and would not exceed official regional or local population

projections.

b. The proposed project is being implemented in part to restore the full, permitted

functional design capacity of the wastewater treatment facility and to comply with

existing Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control

Board. The proposed project will not create an increase in treatment capacity above the

existing permitted design capacity and therefore, would not remove a potential

constraint to growth.

c/d. The proposed improvements would take place within the boundaries of the existing

IWTF site. There are no homes located within the APEs of any of portion of the project.

No homes would be removed.



13. PUBLIC SERVICES

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of

or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response

times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Fire protection? (3)

b. Police protection? (3)

c. Schools? (3)

d. Parks? (3)

e. Other public facilities? (3)

Comments:

a-e. The proposed project would not result in an increased demand for any public services or

facilities and would not result in the need for any new or expanded government facilities.



14. RECREATION


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (3)

b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (3)

Comments:

a/b. The proposed project would not create demand for recreational facilities, nor does it

include recreational facilities.



15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (3,18)

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (3)

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (3)

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (3)

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? (3)

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? (3)

g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? (3)

h. Conflicts with airport operations (3)

Comments:

a/b. The proposed project would not create permanent increases in vehicle trips and

therefore, would not permanently affect circulation conditions on any road segment or at

any intersection. Truck trips will be the primary source of short-term traffic during the

construction process. Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of sludge would be removed

from the aeration lagoon. It will be placed in geosynthetic bags placed on site as part of

a dewatering and drying process before the dried sludge is hauled to a licensed solid



waste disposal facility. The volume of the dredge material is substantially reduced

through the dewatering and drying process. It is estimated that approximately 42,000

cubic yards of material will ultimately need to be transported off-site for disposal

(Cannon Corp, page 6). If it assumed that each haul truck has capacity to carry 18 cubic

yards of material (truck plus trailer), a total of approximately 2,333 truck trips would be

required. Given that the proposed project is likely to be implemented over time as funds

become available, it is estimated that the project would be implemented over the course

of a year or more. Given site and sludge loading rate constraints, it is estimated that up

to six months (or approximately 120 working days) will be required to load and transport

sludge material off-site. This equates to approximately 20 truck trips per day. At this

volume of daily trips, impacts on the road network are not anticipated to be significant.

c. The project would have no effect on air traffic patterns and would not increase air traffic

levels.

d/e. The proposed project includes the repair of existing access road surfaces, which is

comprised of minor grading and installation of double chip seal. The proposed project

would not reroute any roads and would not increase hazards due to design features or

result in inadequate emergency access.

f. The proposed project would not require permanent parking facilities.

g. The proposed project does not involve development that is subject to general plan

policies or other plans or programs related to alternative transportation.

h. The project is a short-term construction project that would not create improvements that

conflict with any airport operations.



16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project:


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (3)

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (3)

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (3)

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (3)

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (3)

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid-waste disposal needs? (3,8)

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? (3)

Comments:

a. The proposed project would not increase the existing permitted treatment capacity of the

City’s IWTF. Exiting limitations on IWTF capacity would remain unchanged and the

project would not result in discharges that exceed existing Waste Discharge Requirement

standards for the treatment facility.



b. The proposed project includes improvements to the existing industrial wastewater

treatment facility. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are evaluated in

this initial study. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation

measures are included to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

c. The proposed project would not result in an increase in storm water runoff relative to

existing conditions. Therefore, it would not result in the need to construct new storm

water drainage facilities or expand of existing facilities.

d/e. The proposed project would not create a permanent demand for water. No new water

supplies or expansion of existing water supply sources would be needed.

f/g. A total of 60,000 cubic feet of sludge would be removed from the aeration lagoon to

improve the percolation ability of the lagoon. The dried sludge volume that must be

removed for disposal is likely to be about 42,000 cubic yards. It will likely be hauled to

Johnson Canyon Landfill for disposal. The Johnson Canyon Landfill, which is operated

by the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, is located east of the City of Gonzales.

According to Cesar Zuniga, a Field Operations Supervisor at the Salinas Valley Solid

Waste Authority, the landfill currently has adequate capacity to accept the soil.

However, the landfill is already soil rich, and a fee of $63 per ton would be assessed to

deposit soil at this facility (Cesar Zuniga, telephone interview, June 2, 2009).



17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE


Impact



Impact

No Impact

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (1,2,6,9,10,11,13,16)

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (1,2,3,5,7)

("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects).

c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (3,10)

Comments:

a. The proposed project has the potential to indirectly impact riverine aquatic habitat

through erosion of adjacent lands and downstream sedimentation. The proposed project

may also impact the habitat of migratory frogs, such as the California red-legged frog,

nesting raptors, roosting bats, and may impact migration routes for some migratory bird

species. Mitigation measures included in Section 4, Biological Resources, would reduce

these impacts to a less than significant level.



The proposed project also has the potential during grading activities to disturb cultural

resources due to its proximity to a recorded archaeological site. Mitigation measures

included in the Section 5, Cultural Resources, would reduce the level of impact to less

than significant.

b. The potential effects of the proposed project would be minimal and those that have been

identified would be short-term in nature. The potential impacts identified would be

reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures

and would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

c. The proposed project includes does not have environmental effects that would cause

substantial adverse effects on human beings.



E. SOURCES 1. City of Salinas. City of Salinas General Plan. September 2002.

2. City of Salinas. City of Salinas General Plan EIR. August 2002.

3. Project Description

4. State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Database, found

May 7, 2009 online at www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public.

5. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

February 2008.

6. County of Monterey. Monterey County General Plan. September 30, 1982.

7. Monterey Unified Air Pollution Control District, telephone interview with Jean Getchell,

May 27, 2009.

8. Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority, telephone interview with Cesar Zuniga, June 2,

2009.

9. California Department of Fish and Game. California Natural Diversity Database, Salinas and

eight surrounding quadrangles. 2009.

10. Site Visit, EMC Planning Group Inc. May 21, 2009.

11. Monterey County. Zoning Ordinance, Title 21 – Inland Zoning. 21.64.260 – Preservation of

Oak and Other Protected Trees.

12. City of Salinas. Standards to Control Excavations, Cuts, Fills, Clearing, Grading,

Erosion and Sediment. 2007.

13. Archaeological Consulting. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey for the Salinas Industrial

Wastewater Conveyance Project, Segments 1, 2, and 3, Salinas, Monterey County,

California, June 19, 2009.

14. City of Salinas. City of Salinas Municipal Code. December 16, 2008.

15. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Monterey County,

California. April 2, 2009.

16. EMC Planning Group, Inc. Biotic Resources Assessment Industrial Wastewater Treatment

Plant, Salinas, California. August 13, 2009.



17. EMC Planning Group Inc. Salinas Ag-Industrial Center EIR. November 2009.

18. Cannon Corporation. IWTF Aeration Lagoon Solids Removal and Disposal Options. July

2009.

All documents indicated in bold are available for review at the City of Salinas Engineering

Department, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Salinas, during normal business hours.

All documents listed above are available for review at EMC Planning Group Inc., 301

Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C, Monterey, California 93940, (831) 649-1799 during normal

business hours.





APPENDIX A

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLAN SALINAS, CALIFORNIA

APNs 207-201-001 and 207-201-002

PREPARED FOR

City of Salinas

August 13, 2009


INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT SALINAS, CALIFORNIA

Biological Resources Assessment


Frank Aguayo, Civil Engineer

200 Lincoln Avenue

Salinas California 93901

Tel 831.758.7241



Monterey, CA 93940

Tel 831.649.1799

Fax 831.649.8399

[email protected]

www.emcplanning.com

August 13, 2009


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................... ES-1

Purpose .................................................................................. ES-1

Conclusions ............................................................................ ES-1

Organization of the Assessment ................................................ ES-2

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1-1

1.1 Methods .......................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Objectives ........................................................................ 1-2

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................... 2-1

2.1 Property Location............................................................. 2-1

2.2 Topography and Soils ....................................................... 2-1

2.3 Land Use ......................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Vegetation and Wildlife .................................................... 2-2

3.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES ............................................ 3-1

3.1 Plants .............................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Wildlife ........................................................................... 3-2

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 4-1

4.1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................ 4-1

4.2 Impact Evaluation ............................................................ 4-4

5.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARATION ..................... 5-1

5.1 References ....................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Report Preparation ........................................................... 5-2


Appendices

Appendix A Site Photographs

Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location........................................................................... 2-3

Figure 2 Project Vicinity ............................................................................... 2-5

Figure 3 Aerial Photograph ........................................................................... 2-7

Figure 4 Vegetation Map............................................................................... 2-9

Figure 5 Recorded Observations of Special Status Species .............................. 3-3

Tables

Table 1 Special Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the

Project Vicinity ............................................................................... 3-5

Table 2 Special Status Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the

Project Vicinity ..............................................................................3-12

Table 3 California Red-legged Frog Survey Results......................................3-20

EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

This biotic resources assessment has been prepared to provide information regarding existing

habitats, vegetation, and wildlife found within the City of Salinas’s Industrial Wastewater

Treatment Plant (IWWTP). The IWWTP is located southwest of the City of Salinas adjacent to

the Salinas River in Monterey County, California. The project area is comprised of two parcels

totaling approximately 279 acres with four ponds, 54 drying ponds, and a small building

containing pump equipment. The biological survey addresses conditions within all of these

areas. In addition to a description of existing conditions, this assessment includes an evaluation

of the potential for special-status species and other significant biological resources to occur on

the site. Determinations regarding the presence or absence of environmentally sensitive habitat

have been made. Recommendations to avoid or minimize impacts to biological resources are

supplied based on the determination of potential impacts identified in this assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the biological assessment, the following conclusions can be made:

There are two protected communities present within the project area: riparian woodland

and riverine aquatic. The Monterey County General Plan includes several riparian

protection policies, including 16.2.3, which requires a minimum 200 foot setback from a

riverbank. Impacts within the setback area during construction are considered potentially

significant and mitigation is required.

The Salinas River is located within and adjacent to the western boundary of the property.

Two ditches transect the property and empty to the River. The Salinas River and the

ditches that flow to the River are likely considered jurisdictional by the ACOE.

Disturbance to the Salinas River or the ditches conveying water to the River would be

considered a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.

California red-legged frogs are known to occur within the Salinas River corridor and may

also potentially occur within ditches and stream habitats on the project site. Although no

frogs were found during two daytime and two nighttime surveys, it is anticipated that frogs

may occasionally occur in the area and construction within the project area could result in

the direct loss of this species or indirect loss of habitat and mitigation is required.

One dead newt was found in a treatment pond during the surveys conducted for California

red-legged frog. Although full identification to species was not possible given the

condition, given the known range of the species it is assumed that the individual was a

Coast Range newt. The loss of individuals of these species is considered a potentially

significant impact and mitigation is required.

Trees located along the Salinas River have the potential to provide nesting habitat for

raptors and migratory birds and roosting or nesting bats. No evidence of nesting or

roosting activity was observed in the trees during site investigations. However, if active

nest(s) of protected bird species or bat roosting or nesting sites should occur in the trees,

any construction and site preparation activities, if conducted during the nesting or roosting

season, could result in a significant impact and mitigation is required.

The project site is situated geographically within an important part of the Pacific Flyway

and a project may place development near a known migration route for a number of

migratory bird species. Lighting, tall buildings and antennae in particular pose potential

dangers to migratory birds. Therefore, the effects of development within the project area

on waterbirds and their movement patterns are potentially significant and mitigation is

required.

Please refer to Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of this report for more detail on the impact evaluations

and mitigation recommendations that are summarized above.

ORGANIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT

This assessment is divided into the following sections/topics:

Section 1.0: Introduction

This section identifies the methods used to conduct the biotic resources assessment of the

property and the objectives of this study.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. ES-3

Section 2.0: Existing Conditions

This section describes the location, topography, soils, and existing and proposed land use of the

site.

Section 3.0: Special-Status Species

This section discusses special-status plant and animal species that have the potential to be found

on the site. Special-status species include species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) as threatened or endangered, USFWS candidates for listing as threatened or

endangered, species listed by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as threatened or

endangered, species designated by USFWS and/or CDFG as “Species of Special Concern,” and

species included on California Native Plant Society Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.

Section 4.0: Potential Impacts and Recommendations

This section identifies potentially significant impacts to biological resources and provides

recommendations to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Section 5.0: References and Report Preparation

This section provides a bibliography of technical resources used in preparation of the biological

resources assessment, and lists the staff involved in preparation of this document.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.


EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This biotic resources assessment has been prepared to provide information regarding existing

habitats, and plant and animal species found at the City of Salinas’s Industrial Wastewater

Treatment Plant (hereinafter “project area”), which encompasses approximately 279 acres and is

located on South Davis Road, southwest of the City of Salinas in Monterey County, California.

1.1 METHODS

A background data search was conducted prior to a field investigation of the project area to

determine the potential for sensitive habitats and rare species to occur in the project area. These

data were obtained from the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California

(California Native Plant Society 2001), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

Natural Diversity Data Base (Salinas, Natividad, Marina, Moss Landing, Prunedale, San Juan

Bautista, Seaside, Spreckels, and Chualar quadrangles, 2009) and special plants and animals lists

from CDFG (2009).

In addition, other documents were reviewed to obtain information regarding biological resources

in the vicinity of the project area, including the following:

Monterey County General Plan (Monterey County 1982)

Draft Monterey County General Plan Update (Monterey County 2007)

Greater Salinas Area Plan (Monterey County 1982)

Draft Greater Salinas Area Plan (Monterey County 2007)

Surveys were conducted by Janet Ilse, Biologist/Senior Planner with EMC Planning Group, Inc.

and Dana Bland, Dana Bland and Associates on May 19, June 3, June 15, and June 17, 2009.

Together with available topographic maps and aerial photographs, the surveys served as the

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1-2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.

basis to identify and map the principal plant communities occurring in the project area and

assess the potential for special-status species and their habitats, primarily the listed California

red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), wildlife movement corridors, potential jurisdictional

wetlands, protected trees, and other significant biological resources to occur in the project area.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

One of the objectives of this biological resources assessment was to identify and map all existing

habitat types occurring in the project area. All observed habitats have been characterized in

terms of dominant plant species and associated wildlife species, and maps are included that

depict the general locations of habitats and biological resources present in the project area.

Another objective of this biological resources assessment was to determine the potential for

special-status plant and wildlife species and their habitats to occur in the project area. Special-

status species include species listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as threatened or endangered, USFWS and NMFS

candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, species listed by the CDFG as threatened or

endangered or designated as “Species of Special Concern,” and species included on California

Native Plant Society Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.

A final objective of this biological resources assessment was to determine the need for additional

mitigation measures and/or studies.


2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section discusses the property location, topography, soils, and existing and proposed land

use in the project area. An account of plant and animal species that were observed during the

field investigation, as well as those species which were not observed but are likely to occur in the

project area, is also included. Qualitative observations of potential animal movement patterns

through the project area were also made and are summarized in this section. Significant

biological resources are identified.

2.1 PROPERTY LOCATION

The project area is located within the Salinas Valley in Monterey County, California. The

regional location is illustrated in Figure 1, Regional Location. The project area is located

southwest of the city limits of Salinas and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers 207-201-001 and

207-201-002. The project area vicinity is illustrated in Figure 2, Property Vicinity. Figure 3,

Aerial Photograph, shows an aerial photograph of the project area.

2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS

Topography

Topography in the project area ranges from approximately 30 feet above sea level (ASL) where

the project area includes the Salinas River, to over 40 feet ASL east towards Salinas.



Soils

The project area contains four different soil types, as described in the Soil Survey of Monterey

County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 1978). The soil

types found on the property are listed below.

Metz fine sandy loam

Mocho silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Pico fine sandy loam

Salinas clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

2.3 LAND USE

The two parcels within project area are zoned for public/quasi public uses. The project site has

been developed for use as a wastewater treatment facility. Existing development on the parcels

includes four ponds, 54 drying ponds, and a small building containing pump equipment.

2.4 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

The following is a description of the vegetation and wildlife habitats found on the property,

which include riparian scrub/woodland, riverine aquatic, California annual grassland, and

disturbed/developed land. Figure 4, Vegetation Map, illustrates the location of each habitat

type. Photos of the property are included in Appendix A.

Riverine Aquatic

The Salinas River originates in San Luis Obispo County and meanders approximately 155 miles

through the relatively level Salinas Valley before flowing into Monterey Bay. The Salinas River

flows year-round although primarily below-surface during the summer months. Emergent

aquatic vegetation present within slow-moving areas within the channel include cattail (Typha

sp.), tule (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis), and watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum).

Amphibians such as the Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla) breed in small isolated pools and both

native and non-native species of fish are known to occur in the stream. The river has been

designated critical habitat for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Additional species that may occur

include Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis), Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus gradis),

152

156

Salinas

MorganHill

San Jose

Hollister

680880

280

152

1

101

156

25

Soledad

KingCity

BigSur

156

85

85

101

Modesto

Merced

580

Oakland

99

99

PaloAlto

17

68

5

San LuisReservoir

P a c i f i c O c e a n

ProjectLocation

MontereyCarmel

Santa Cruz

San Francisco

Gilroy

5

Los Banos

580

5

101

152

80

183

59

152

108

4

12

99

Stockton

Lodivallejo 80

780

1

1

1

1

1

Figure 1

SVSWA IWWTP Biological Resources Assessment

Project Location

Source: EMC Planning Group Inc.Not to Scale




SALINAS RIVER

DAVIS

RD

BLANCO RD

RESERVATION RD

HWY 6

8 HWY

RIVER RD

HWY 183 HWY

COOP

ER R

D

HITCHCOCK RD

BARL

OY CA

NYON R

D

SKYLINE

FOSTER RD

JACKS RD

WATKINS GAT

E RD

EUC ALYPTUS RD

BORO

NDA R

D

OIL WELL RD

MARKET ST

IMJIN RD

MC FADDEN RD

OLD COUNTY DIRT

NASHUA RD

SAN JON

RD

IMPO

SS

IBLE CANYON RD

HUNTER LN

SPRECKELS BLVD

GIGLING RD

HENNEKENS RANCH RD RAMP

PANZIERA RD

ARMS

TRON

G RD

CAMP ST

D

HONOR LN

Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2009, Monterey County 2006, City of Salinas 2006

Figure 2Project Vicinity

SVWSA IWWTP Biological Resources Assessment

0 1 mile

Legend

Streams

City of Salinas

Project Boundary

Roads










SVWSA IWWTP BIOTIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT


hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), and prickly sculpin (Cottus asper). Garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.),

belted kingfishers (Ceryle alcyon) and common mergansers (Mergus merganser) forage on the

smaller species of fishes and amphibians found in the river.

Riparian Scrub / Woodland

The western boundary of the project site consists of a riparian corridor along the Salinas River.

A gravel and/or dirt road maintained for access is located along the entire edge of the riparian

corridor. The riparian corridor supports a diversity of vegetation and provides valuable wildlife

habitat. The dominant plant species in this corridor include willow thickets (Salix sp.) with

scattered Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii).

Non-native annual grasses and forbs dominate open areas in the riparian woodland habitat and

the edge between riparian woodland habitat and the access road. Common species include oat

(Avena spp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), thistles (Centaurea solstitialis, Cirsium vulgare, Silybum

marianum), mallow (Malva spp.), giant reed (Arundo donax), and mustards (Brassica spp).

The scattered oak and cottonwood trees provide roost and nesting sites for raptors and other bird

species, and the canopy contributes to its value as a corridor for wildlife. White-crowned

sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata), bushtits

(Psaltriparus minimus), scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and

northern flickers (Colaptes auratus) are likely inhabitants of the riparian vegetation. Grasses and

forbs in the riparian understory harbor insects and provide seed and nesting material for

sparrows, finches, and small mammals.

California Annual Grassland Series (Ruderal)

The project area contains a variety of disturbed areas that have been affected by previous

activities. These disturbed areas support a mixture of ruderal (weedy) species, dominated by non-

native annual grasses and forbs. Dominant species in these areas include mustard (Brassica sp.)

ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) wild oats (Avena sp.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus),

poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium). These

ruderal areas in general provide marginal wildlife habitat, but some of the more extensive open

areas could support populations of lizards and small mammals, which could provide a prey base

for raptors, snakes, and other predators.

Disturbed/Developed Land

Bare land and highly disturbed areas occur along the roadways, as part of the wastewater

treatment plant facility, and are also associated with the drying beds. Herbaceous vegetation is



dominated by a variety of ornamental and weedy plant species. Wildlife present within

developed habitats is typically common and widespread due to adaptability to urban

environments, however due to the proximity of the Salinas River native wildlife species are

expected to at least occasionally visit the disturbed habitats.

Wetlands/Waters of the U.S.

Potential wetlands and waters of the U.S. were identified adjacent to and on the project site.

These include the Salinas River and drainage channels leading to the Salinas River. These

channels are utilized primarily for transportation of agricultural runoff and stormwater and are

frequently inundated. The determination of jurisdiction over canals and drainage ditches as

“Waters of the U.S.” is based on the interpretation of the definition of tributary waters decided

in the court case Headwaters vs. Talent Irrigation District (2001). The Talent decision maintains that

ditches that do not meet all three of the wetland criteria (hydric soils, hydrophytic plants, and

hydrology) but have water flow characteristics and flow into regulated waters downstream may

now be under ACOE jurisdiction. The ACOE may consider some segments of a ditch

“potentially jurisdictional” and some segments “potentially non-jurisdictional.” Segments that

would be considered jurisdictional are those that connect to a water body of the U.S. (a stream,

wetland, or other body of water). This connection may be through surface flow or an enclosed

storm system.

The Salinas River is considered a jurisdictional feature. Therefore, impacts that would affect the

bed or bank of the drainages into the river would require permits from the appropriate agencies,

including the ACOE, CDFG, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Although

specific construction details are unknown at this time, it is assumed that the drainage ditches

crossing the site will be impacted during construction activities.


3.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Data from the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), and CDFG Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (Salinas, Natividad, Marina,

Moss Landing, Prunedale, San Juan Bautista, Seaside, Spreckels, and Chualar quadrangles,

2009) were reviewed to determine any potential special-status species that may occur in the

project area. Figure 5, Recorded Observations of Special Status Species shows the locations of

special status species within the vicinity of the project site.

3.1 PLANTS

Special-status plant species that were initially judged to have the potential to be found in the

project area based on the above data are listed in Table 1, Special Status Plant Species with the

Potential to Occur within the Project Vicinity, along with their legal status and habitat. This list

was determined by evaluating the geographic ranges and habitat requirements of species and

habitat conditions in the project area. The table also indicates whether these species were

observed or are likely to occur in the project area.

Special status plants generally occur in relatively undisturbed areas and are largely found within

unique vegetation communities and/or habitats such as vernal pools or alkali flats. Based on the

field surveys, there is not suitable habitat within the project area for the sensitive plant species

identified in Table 1, Special Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur within the Project

Vicinity. The dominance of disturbed areas and non-native annual and perennial species likely

precludes the presence of these native species.

3.0 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES


3.2 WILDLIFE

Special-status animal species that were initially judged to have the potential to be found in the

project area based on the above data are listed in Table 2, Special Status Wildlife Species with

the Potential to Occur within the Project Vicinity, along with their legal status and habitat. This

list was determined by evaluating the geographic ranges and habitat requirements of species and

habitat conditions in the project area. The table also indicates whether these species were

observed or are likely to occur in the project area.

As shown in Table 2, Special Status Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur within the

Project Vicinity, thirty-three special-status wildlife species were initially judged to potentially

occur within the project area. Of these thirty-three species, the proposed project area supports

potential habitat for California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), roosting bats, and nesting

raptors and migratory birds.

California red-legged frog. The California red-legged frog is listed by the USFWS as threatened

and by CDFG as a “Species of Special Concern.” California red-legged frogs occur in aquatic

habitats with deep pools and emergent vegetation. This species is found near perennial water

during the dry season and can disperse long distances away from water during and after winter

rains. Recorded observations of California red-legged frog have been documented along

tributaries to and the Salinas River itself.

The ponds and ditches within the project area were analyzed during two daytime and two

nighttime surveys. A full protocol as recommended in the Guidance on Site Assessment and Field

Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2005) was not conducted due to the lateness of the year. Surveys were conducted by EMC

Planning Group Inc. and Dana Bland and Associates. Methodology included walking the

perimeters of the treatment ponds, the portions of the ditch with water adjacent to the north and

western portions of the ponds, and the smaller sediment basins with water present. Binoculars

were used to aid in the identification of species, and flashlights were used at night to search for

eyeshine. All vertebrates observed were recorded in a field notebook.

The amphibians observed during each survey are shown in Table 3, California Red-legged Frog

Survey Results.

black legless lizard

robust spineflower

prairie falcon

sandmat manzanita

Toro manzanitaHooker's manzanita

Salinas harvest mouse

Central Maritime Chaparral

Salinas harvest mouse

Hutchinson's larkspur

Eastwood's goldenbush

Toro manzanita

Kellogg's horkelia

Santa Cruz clover

sand giliablack legless lizardblack legless lizardblack legless lizard

Toro manzanita

sand gilia

sand gilia

Toro manzanita

sand gilia








black legless lizardblack legless lizard

southwestern pond turtleMonterey spineflower

sandmat manzanita


sandmat manzanita

southwestern pond turtle

sand gilia

Hickman's onion

California linderiella


sand gilia

California horned lark

seaside bird's-beak

Kellogg's horkelia

Monterey spineflower

Hooker's manzanita

seaside bird's-beak

American badger

Hickman's onion

sand gilia

sand gilia

sand gilia

sand gilia


sand gilia

Kellogg's horkelia

Congdon's tarplant

Kellogg's horkelia

Congdon's tarplant

sand gilia

sand gilia

sand gilia

Hickman's onionCalifornia tiger salamander


sand gilia

California tiger salamander



California red-legged frog

California tiger salamanderCalifornia tiger salamander

California tiger salamander

Contra Costa goldfields

sand gilia

Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2009, Monterey County 2006, CDFG 2009

Figure 5CNDDB


0 4,500 feet

ProjectLocation




SVWSA BIOTIC RESOURCES ASSESSMENT


Table 1 Special Status Plant Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity

Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)

Habitat Potential to Occur on Site

Alkali milk-vetch

(Astragalus tener

var. tener)

--/--/1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill

grassland (adobe clay),

vernal pools / alkaline,

elevation 1 - 60m.

Blooming Period: March –

June.

Unlikely. Surveys occurred

during the blooming

period. Suitable grassland

or vernal pool habitat not

found.

Carmel Valley

bush mallow

(Malacothamnus

palmeri var.

involucratus)

--/--/1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane

woodland, coastal scrub,

elevation 30 - 1,100m.

Blooming Period: May -

October

Unlikely. Species occurs at

higher elevations than that

of the project site.

Carmel Valley

malacothrix

(Malacothrix

saxatilis var.

arachnoidea)

--/--/1B Chaparral (rocky),

elevation 25 - 335m.

Blooming Period: March -

December




Coast wallflower

(Erysimum

ammophilum)

FSC/--/1B.2 Maritime chaparral,

coastal dunes, coastal

scrub, sandy openings,

elevation 0 – 60m.

Blooming Period:

February - June


during the blooming

period. Suitable coastal

habitats not found.

Congdon’s

tarplant

(Centromadia

parryi spp.

congdonii)

FSC/--/1B.2 Valley and foothill

grassland (alkaline),


Blooming Period: June -

November

Unlikely. Although

surveys occurred outside of

the blooming period,

suitable grassland habitat

not found.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Contra Costa

Goldfields

(Lasthenia

conjugens)

FE/--/1B.1 Cismontane woodland,

playas (alkaline), valley

and foothill grassland,

vernal pools / mesic, 0-

470m elevation. Blooming

Period: March - June


during the blooming

period. Suitable vernal

pool or grassland habitats

not found.

Eastwood’s

goldenfleece

(Ericameria

fasciculata)

FSC/--/1B.1 Closed cone coniferous

forest, chaparral

(maritime), coastal dunes,

and coastal scrub/sand.

Blooming Period: July -

October

Unlikely. Although



suitable grassland habitat

not found.

Fragrant fritillary

(Fritillaria liliacea)

--/--/1B.2 Coastal scrub, valley and

foothill grassland, coastal

prairie. Often on

serpentine, various soils

reported though usually

clay in grassland, 3-410m

elevation. Blooming

Period: February - April


during the blooming

period. Suitable scrub or

grassland habitats not

found.

Hickman's onion

(Allium hickmanii)

--/--/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous

forest, chaparral, coastal

scrub, valley and foothill

grassland, coastal prairie,

sandy loam, damp ground

and vernal swales, 20-


Period: April - May


during the blooming

period. Suitable forest,

scrub or grassland habitats

not found.

Hooker’s

manzanita

(Arctostaphylos

hookeri ssp. hookeri)

--/--/1B.2 Sandy soils in coastal

scrub, chaparral, and

closed-cone forest habitats;

evergreen, elevation 45 –

215m. Blooming Period:

February - April


during the blooming

period. Suitable scrub or

chaparral habitats not

found.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Hutchinson’s

larkspur

(Delphinium

hutchinsoniae)

--/--/1B.2 Broadleaved upland forest,

chaparral, coastal prairie,

coastal scrub, elevation 0 –

400m. Blooming Period:

March - June


during the blooming

period. Suitable forested or

scrub habitats not found.

Jolon clarkia

(Clarkia jolonensis)

--/--/1B.2 Cismontane woodland,

chaparral, coastal scrub,

20-660m elevation.

Blooming Period: April -

June


during the blooming

period. Suitable wooded or


Kellogg’s horkelia

(Horkelia cuneata

ssp. sericea)

FSC/--/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous

forest, maritime chaparral,

coastal scrub, sandy or

gravelly openings,



September


during the blooming



Marsh microseris

(Microseris

paludosa)

FSC/--/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous

forest, cismontane

woodland, coastal scrub,

valley and foothill

grassland, 5-300m

elevation. Blooming

Period: April - June


during the blooming

period. Suitable forested,

grassland or scrub habitats

not found.

Monterey

manzanita

(Arctostaphylos

montereyensis)

--/--/1B.2 Maritime chaparral,

cismontane woodland,

coastal scrub, sandy,


Blooming Period:

February – March


during the blooming



Monterey pine

(Pinus radiata)


forest, cismontane

woodland, elevation 25 -

185m. Evergreen

Unlikely. Monterey pine

trees found on project site

are ornamental.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Monterey

spineflower

(Chorizanthe

pungens var.

pungens)

FT/--/1B.2 Chaparral (maritime)



scrub, valley and foothill

grassland/sandy.


June


during the blooming

period. Suitable sandy

habitats not found.

Pacific Grove

clover

(Trifolium

polyodon)

--/Rare/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous

forest, coastal prairie,

meadows and seeps, valley

and foothill grassland,

mesic, elevation 5 – 120m.


June


during the blooming



found.

Pajaro manzanita

(Arctostaphylos

pajaroensis)

FSC/--/1B.1 Sandy soils in chaparral

habitat; evergreen,


Blooming Period:

December - March

Unlikely. Although



suitable chaparral habitat

not found.

Pine rose

(Rosa pinetorum)


forest, 2-300m elevation.


July


during the blooming



found.

Pinnacles

buckwheat

(Eriogonum

nortonii

--/--/1B.3 Chaparral, valley and

foothill grassland / sandy,

often on recent burns,

elevation 300 - 975m.


June






Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Robust

spineflower

(Chorizanthe

robusta var. robusta)

FE/--/1B.1 Cismontane woodland

(openings) coastal dunes,

coastal scrub/sandy or

gravelly. Blooming Period:

April - July


during the blooming

period. Suitable woodland

or scrub habitats not

found.

Saline clover

(Trifolium

depauperatum var.

hydrophilum)

--/--/1B.2 Marshes and swamps,

valley and foothill

grassland, vernal pools.

Mesic, alkaline sites, 0-


Period: April - June


during the blooming

period. Suitable vernal

pool or grassland habitats

not found.

Sand gilia

(Gilia tenuiflora ssp.

Arenaria)

FE/CT/1B.2 Maritime chaparral,






June


during the blooming



Sandmat

manzanita

(Arctostaphylos

pumila)

--/--/1B.2 Closed cone coniferous

forest, maritime chaparral,





Blooming Period:

February - May


during the blooming

period. Suitable chaparral

or forest habitats not

found.

Santa Cruz clover

(Trifolium

buckwestiorum)

FSC/--/1B.1 Broadleaved upland forest,


coastal prairie, elevation

105 – 610m. Blooming

Period: April - October






Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Santa Cruz microseris

(Stebbinsoseris decipiens)

FSC/--/1B Broadleaved upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, open areas, sometimes serpentine, elevation 10 – 500m. Blooming Period: April - May

Unlikely. Surveys occurred during the blooming period. Suitable forested, scrub or grassland habitats not found.

Santa Cruz tarplant

(Holocarpha macradenia

FT/SE/1B.1 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, often on clay or sandy soils, 10-220m elevation. Blooming Period: June - October

Unlikely. Surveys occurred during the blooming period. Suitable scrub or grassland habitats not found.

Seaside bird’s beak

(Cordylanthus rigidus ssp. littoralis)

--/CE/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, sandy often disturbed sites, elevation 0 – 215m. Blooming Period: May - October

Unlikely. Although surveys occurred outside of the blooming period, suitable chaparral or scrub habitat not found.

Yadon’s rein orchid

(Piperia yadonii)

FE/--/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, closed cone coniferous forest, chaparral (maritime)/sandy. Blooming Period: May - August

Unlikely. Although surveys occurred outside of the blooming period, suitable scrub or forested habitat not found.

Yadon's wallflower

(Erysimum menziesii ssp. yadonii)

FE/CE/1B.1 Coastal dunes, known only from six locations near Marina in Monterey Bay. Threatened by development and sand mining 1-10m elevation. Blooming Period: May - September

Unlikely. Although surveys occurred outside of the blooming period, suitable coastal dune habitat not found.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Communities

Central Dune Scrub Not found. Suitable plant

composition not present on

project site.

Central Maritime Chaparral Not found. Suitable plant


project site.

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Not found. Suitable plant


project site.

Coastal Brackish Marsh Not found. Suitable plant


project site.

Monterey Pine Forest Not found. Suitable plant


project site.

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Not found. Suitable plant


project site.

Valley Needlegrass Grassland Not found. Suitable plant


project site.

Source: CNDDB 2009

Note:

FE: Listed as ‘Endangered” by the Federal Endangered Species Act.

FT: Listed as "Threatened" by the Federal Endangered Species Act.

FC: A candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

FSC: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) “Special Concern.” Prior to February 1996, the USFWS identified

these species as “Category 2” candidates for listing (taxa for which information in the possession of the USFWS indicated

that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological

vulnerability and threat were not currently available to support proposed rules). The designation of Category 2 species as

candidates resulted in confusion about the conservation status of these taxa. To reduce that confusion, and to clarify that

the USFWS does not regard these species as candidates for listing, the USFWS has discontinued the designation of

Category 2 species as candidates. The USFWS remains concerned about these species, but further biological research and

field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.



CE: Listed as "Endangered" by the California Endangered Species Act.

CT: Listed as "Threatened" by the California Endangered Species Act.

1B: Plants considered by California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California and

elsewhere due to their limited or vulnerable habitat, their low numbers of individuals per population (even though they

may be wide ranging), or their limited number of populations.

CNPS New Threat Code Extensions:

.1: Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)

.2: Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)

.3: Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)

Table 2 Special Status Wildlife Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity

Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


American badger

(Taxidea taxus)

--/CSC Most abundant in drier

open stages of most shrub,

forest, and herbaceous

habitats, with friable soils.

Need sufficient food, friable

soils, and open,

uncultivated ground. Prey

on burrowing rodents and

dig burrows.

Unlikely. Suitable open

grassland habitat not

present.

Bank swallow

(Riparia riparia)

--/CT (Nesting) Colonial nester,

nests primarily in riparian

and other lowland habitats

west of the desert, requires

vertical banks/cliffs with

fine-textured/sandy soils

near streams, rivers, lakes,

ocean to dig nesting hole

Unlikely. Suitable cliff

habitats not present.

Black legless

lizard

(Anniella pulchra

nigra)

--/CSC Moist, warm habitats with

loose soil for burrowing and

prostrate plant cover in

beaches, chaparral, pine-

oak woodland, or riparian

areas.


sandy habitat not present.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Burrowing Owl

(Athene cunicularia)

--/CSC Open, dry, annual or

perennial grasslands, desert

or scrubland, available

burrows.


grassland habitat with

available burrows not

present.

California

brackishwater

snail (mimic

tryonia)

(Tryonia imitator)

--/CSC Aquatic, found on rocks

and in gravel of riffles in

cool, swift, clear streams.

Unlikely. Suitable brackish

water habitats not present.

California clapper

rail

(Rallus longirostris

obsoletus)

FE/CE Found in saltwater and

brackish marshes, traversed

by tidal sloughs in the

vicinity of San Francisco

Bay. Associated with

abundant growths of

pickleweed, but feeds away

from cover on invertebrates

from mud-bottomed

sloughs.

Unlikely. Suitable brackish

water or saltwater habitats

not present.

California horned

lark

(Eremophila

alpestris actia)

--/CSC Coastal regions, chiefly

from Sonoma County to

San Diego County, also

within the main part of the

San Joaquin Valley and east

to the foothills. Prefers

short-grass prairie,

mountain meadows, open

coastal plains, fallow grain

fields, alkali flats.



present.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


California

linderiella

(Linderiella

occidentalis)

FSC/-- Seasonal pools in unplowed

grasslands with old alluvial

soils underlain by hardpan

or in sandstone depressions.

Water in the pools typically

has very low alkalinity,

conductivity, and total

dissolved solids.

Unlikely. Suitable seasonal

pools within grassland

habitat not present.

California red-

legged frog

(Rana aurora

draytonii)

FT/CSC Rivers, creeks and stock

ponds with pools and

overhanging vegetation.

Possible. Species known to

occur along the Salinas

River and may migrate to

ponds within project area.

California tiger

salamander

(Ambystoma

californiense)

FT/ CC Grasslands, open oak

woodlands, and seasonal

pools or stock ponds in

central California.


grassland and unmanaged

pool/pond habitat not

present.

Coast horned

lizard

(Phrynosoma

coronatum frontale)

--/CSC Frequents a wide variety of

habitats, most common in

lowlands along sandy

washes with scattered low

bushes. Requires open areas

for sunning, bushes for

cover, patches of loose soil

for burial, and abundant

supply of ants and other

insects.



Coast Range newt

(Taricha torosa

torosa)

--/CSC Coastal drainages from

Mendocino County to San

Diego County. Lives in

terrestrial habitats and will

migrate over 1 km to breed

in ponds, reservoirs and

slow moving streams.

Possible. One dead newt

was identified during the

surveys.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Cooper's Hawk

(Accipter cooperii)

--/CSC Oak or riparian woodlands Possible. Species may nest

in ornamental trees along

Salinas River.

Ferruginous hawk

(Buteo regalis)

--/CSC (Wintering) Open

grasslands, sagebrush flats,

desert scrub, low foothills

and fringes of pinyon-

juniper habitats. Mostly

consumes flat lagomorphs,

ground squirrels, and mice.



present.

Globose dune

beetle

(Coelus globosus)

--/-- Inhabitant of coastal sand

dune habitat from Bodega

Head in Sonoma County

south to Ensenada, Mexico.

Found in foredunes and

sand hummocks, it burrows

beneath the sand surface

and is most common

beneath dune vegetation.



Hoary bat

(Lasiurus cinereus)

--/CSC Prefers open habitats or

habitat mosaics, with access

to trees for cover and open

areas or habitat edges for

feeding. Roosts in dense

foliage of medium to large

trees. Feeds primarily on

moths. Requires water.

Possible. Suitable trees

occur along the Salinas

River and foraging may

occur along the River and

treatment ponds.

Monarch butterfly

(Danaus plexippus)

--/-- Winter roost sites. Wind

protected tree groves

(Eucalyptus, Monterey

pine, cypress) with nectar

and water sources nearby

Unlikely. Suitable wind

protected tree groves not

present.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Pallid bat

(Antrozous pallidus)

--/CSC Deserts, grasslands,

shrublands, woodlands and

forests. Most common in

open, dry habitats with

rocky areas for roosting.

Roosts must protect bats

from high temperatures.

Very sensitive to

disturbance of roosting

sites.


grassland or dry habitats

not present.

Pinnacles

optioservus riffle

beetle

(Optioservus canus)

--/-- Aquatic, found on rocks

and in gravel of riffles in

cool, swift, clear streams.

Unlikely. Aquatic habitats

are severely limited within

the Salinas River and are

not suitable for this species.

Prairie falcon

(Falco mexicanus)

--/CSC Nesting Habitats. Open

terrain, either level or hilly

breeding sites located on

cliffs. Forages far distances,

including to marshlands

and ocean shores

Unlikely. Suitable open,

undisturbed habitat not

found.

Redwood

shoulderband

(snail)

(Helminthoglypta

sequoicola consors)

--/-- Known only from south

slope of San Juan Grade,

near foothills, 8 miles

northwest of Salinas.

Unlikely. Project site not

within species’ known

range.

Salinas harvest

mouse

(Reithrodontomys

megalotis distichlis)

--/-- Known only from the

Monterey Bay region.

Occurs in fresh and

brackish water wetlands

and probably in the

adjacent uplands around

the mouth of the Salinas

River.

Unlikely. Site located

upstream from the Salinas

River Mouth.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Santa Cruz long-

toed salamander

(Ambystoma

macrodactylum

croceum)

FE/CE Wet meadows near sea

level in a few restricted

locales in Santa Cruz and

Monterey Counties.

Aquatic larvae prefer

shallow (<12 inches) water,

uses clumps of vegetation or

debris for cover. Adults use

mammal burrows.

Unlikely. Suitable wet

meadow habitat not

present.

Short-eared owl

(Asio flammeus)

--/CSC (Nesting) Found in swamp

lands, both fresh and salt;

lowland meadows; irrigated

alfalfa fields. Tule

patches/tall grass needed

for nesting/daytime

seclusion. Nests on dry

ground in depression

concealed in vegetation.

Unlikely. Suitable

swampland or marshland

habitat not found.

Smith’s blue

butterfly

(Euphilotes enoptes

smithi)

FE/-- Coastal dunes and coastal

sage scrub plant

communities. Host plants

include Eriogonum latifolium

and Eriogonum parvifolium

for larval and adult stages

Unlikely. Suitable host

plants not found.

Southwestern

pond turtle

(Clemmys

marmorata pallida)

--/CSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle

of ponds, marshes, rivers,

streams, and irrigation

ditches with aquatic

vegetation. Need basking

sites and suitable (sandy

banks or grassy open fields)

upland habitat for egg-

laying.

Possible. Species known to

occur along Salinas River.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Steelhead

(Oncorhynchus

mykiss irideus)

FT/-- Coastal stream with

spawning gravel

Possible. Steelhead may be

present in small numbers in

the Salinas River however

yearly flows in the lower

reaches of the river are

extremely variable and

water temperatures are

inhospitably high during

low-flow periods.

Tidewater goby

(Eucyclogobius

newberryi)

FE/FSC Brackish water habitats,

found in shallow lagoons

and lower stream reaches,

still but not stagnant water

with high oxygen levels

Unlikely. Species not

known upstream of one

mile of Salinas River

lagoon.

Tricolored

blackbirds

(Agelaius tricolor)

FSC/-- (Nesting) Areas adjacent to

open water and access to

protected nesting substrate.

Possible. Suitable habitat

and plants may be found

along Salinas River.

Two-striped garter

snake

(Thamnophis

hammondii)

FSC/-- Coastal California from sea

level to about 7,000 feet in

elevation. Highly aquatic,

found in or near permanent

fresh water, often along

streams with rocky beds

and riparian growth.

Unlikely. Suitable rocky

substrate not found in this

portion of the Salinas River.

Western pond

turtle

(Actinemys

marmorata)

--/CSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle

of ponds, marshes, rivers,

streams, and irrigation

ditches with aquatic

vegetation. Need basking

sites and suitable (sandy

banks or grassy open fields)

upland habitat for egg-

laying.

Possible. Suitable habitat

and plants may be found

along Salinas River.



Common and

Scientific Name

Status

(Fed./State/

CNPS)


Western snowy

plover

(Charadrius

alexandrinus

nivosus)

FT/CSC (Nesting Sites) Sandy

beaches, salt pond levees,

shores of large alkali lakes,

sandy, gravelly or friable

soils for nesting

Unlikely. Suitable sandy

beaches or lakeshore

habitats not present.

White-tailed kite

(Elanus leucurus)

--/-- (Nesting) Rolling

foothills/valley margins

with scattered oaks and

river bottomlands or

marshes next to deciduous

woodland. Open

grasslands, meadows, or

marshes for foraging close

to isolated, dense-topped

trees for nesting and

perching.

Possible. Species may nest

in trees along Salinas River.

Source: CNDDB 2009

Notes:

FE: Listed as ‘Endangered” by the Federal Endangered Species Act.

FT: Listed as "Threatened" by the Federal Endangered Species Act.

FC: A candidate for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

FSC: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) “Special Concern.” Prior to February 1996, the USFWS identified

these species as “Category 2” candidates for listing (taxa for which information in the possession of the USFWS indicated

that proposing to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological

vulnerability and threat were not currently available to support proposed rules). The designation of Category 2 species as

candidates resulted in confusion about the conservation status of these taxa. To reduce that confusion, and to clarify that

the USFWS does not regard these species as candidates for listing, the USFWS has discontinued the designation of

Category 2 species as candidates. The USFWS remains concerned about these species, but further biological research and

field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.

CE: Listed as "Endangered" by the California Endangered Species Act.

CT: Listed as "Threatened" by the California Endangered Species Act.

CSC: CDFG “Species of Special Concern.” The CDFG “Species of Special Concern” designation does not afford these species

any federal or state protection. These species should be taken into special consideration when decisions are made

concerning the future of any land parcel. A species is included as a “Species of Special Concern” when their breeding

populations in California are declining. Species are also included that are not declining worldwide, but in California the

population is so low that it is potentially vulnerable to extirpation.

CC: Considered by the CDFG for higher listing.



Table 3 California Red-legged Frog Survey Results

Date Time Type of Survey Amphibians

Observed

05-19-09 0930-1130 Daytime None

06-03-09 2100-2230 Nighttime 1 bullfrog, 2 western

toads, Pacific treefrog

calling

06-15-09 1300-1500 Daytime 1 dead newt

06-17-09 2100-2230 Nighttime 2 western toads

Source: Dana Bland and Associates 2009

No California red-legged frogs were observed during any of the surveys, however, based on an

assessment of the habitat present, the proximity of the Salinas River, and the amphibians

observed, it was determined that the project area could provide suitable habitat for a small

number of California red-legged frogs undetectable during the two daytime and nighttime

surveys. Due to frequent management of the ponds and ditches and the lack of vegetation

suitable breeding habitat is limited for California red-legged frog. Although project plans are not

finalized impacts to habitat for California red-legged frog are considered potentially significant.

Due to the presence of ACOE jurisdictional features the standard measures from the USFWS

Programmatic Biological Opinion for the ACOE 404 permits would be appropriate to avoid and

minimize adverse affects to California red-legged frog if they are present in the construction area.

Coast Range newt. The Coast Range newt is a state listed species of concern. Coastal drainages

from Mendocino County south through the Coast Range to the western slope of the Peninsular

ranges in San Diego County. Lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1 km to breed in

ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. One dead newt was identified during the surveys.

Although full identification to species was not possible given the condition, given the known

range of the species it is assumed that the individual was a Coast Range newt.


concern. The steelhead is an anadromous form of rainbow trout that migrates upstream from the

ocean to spawn in the late fall or early winter, when flows are sufficient to allow them to reach

suitable habitat in far upstream areas. Spawning occurs between December and June in clear,

cool, perennial sections of relatively undisturbed streams. Preferred habitat includes streams with

a dense canopy cover that provides shade, woody debris, and organic matter. Steelhead may be

present in small numbers in the Salinas River however yearly flows in the lower reaches of the

river are extremely variable and water temperatures are inhospitably high during low-flow

periods.




Monterey roach is a small minnow found primarily in small intermittent tributaries in coastal

watersheds. The Monterey roach is known to occur in the Salinas River watershed and may

occur in the reach within the project area.

Western pond turtle. Western pond turtle is listed as a CDFG “Species of Special Concern.”

Preferred habitat for this species includes calm waters such as streams or pools with vegetated

banks and basking sites such as logs or rocks. This species also needs basking sites and suitable

upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for egg-laying. Suitable basking habitat is

present in a number of locations along the Salinas River. Potential nesting habitat could occur

where relatively undisturbed herbaceous vegetation is present.


Salinas River have the potential to provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds, such

as Cooper’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite, and red-tailed hawk,

which are known in the project vicinity. Birds may nest in trees and shrubs or on the ground. A

total of 836 bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the CDFG

(http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/mbta/mbtandx.html). Although no nesting

activity was observed during the site surveys, discussions with plant manager indicated that

nesting occurs within the riprap surrounding the ponds and vegetation along the drainage

ditches.

Roosting Bats. Trees present within the riparian corridor along the Salinas River can provide

roosting sites for bats such as the hoary bat. Additionally, bats may forage over water features at

both the Salinas River and the treatment ponds. Although no bats were identified during the

survey, trees present on the project site have the potential to provide roosting habitat.

Wildlife Corridors. The Salinas River provides a useful regional corridor for much of the

wildlife that may occur in the area as it provides additional shelter and protection for wildlife

species beyond agricultural fields. Because the majority of the project area and properties

adjacent to the project are have been significantly disturbed by ongoing industrial and

agricultural activities, the general habitat quality outside of the Salinas River corridor is

considered poor. However, animals may migrate through or utilize the area for foraging,

especially during the early morning, dusk, and nighttimes.

The project site is situated geographically within an important part of the Pacific Flyway. This

flyway is one of the four major north-south migration routes for migration birds in North

America. During the spring and fall migrations, thousands of birds traveling along the Pacific

Flyway follow the Salinas River, stopping along the way when seeking shelter and food.

The effects of urban development on regional waterbird movement patterns are not well

understood. The proximity of humans, traffic, pets, buildings, other structures and bright lights



to regional wetland habitats would, however, potentially reduce the suitability of such habitats

for waterbirds. If so, the number of birds flying to and from them may decrease. In particular,

lighting (i.e. street lights, security lighting on buildings, neon signs, etc.) associated with urban

development may modify waterbird movement patterns in the project vicinity. Furthermore, if

tall buildings and antenna towers were constructed on the project site, birds may collide with

both structures and invisible guy wires, resulting in mortality that could in some years,

depending on bird movement patterns, be substantial.


4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Potential impacts to significant biological resources in the project area were evaluated based on

the field investigation. Impact analyses are based on the assumption that much of the project

area will be developed with a variety of uses needed to support the proposed transfer station

function. The impact evaluation is preceded by a summary of regulations regarding impacts to

biological resources as these play a substantial role in the impact evaluation.

4.1 REGULATORY SETTING

Protective Policies for Plants, Animals and Habitats

Threatened and Endangered Species. Several species of plants and animals within California

have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered rare and

are vulnerable to extirpation as the state's human population grows and the habitats these species

occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. State and federal laws have provided the

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal

species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally

designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation.

Others have been designated as candidates for such listing. Still others have been designated as

species of special concern by the CDFG. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has

developed its own list of native plants considered rare, threatened or endangered (CNPS 2001).

Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as special status species.

4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Permits may be required from both the CDFG and USFWS if activities associated with a

proposed project will result in the “take” of a listed species. To “take” is defined by the State of

California as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or

kill (California Fish and Game Code, section 86). A “take” is more broadly defined by the

federal Endangered Species Act to include harm (16 USC, section 1532(19), 50 CFR, section

17.3). CDFG and the USFWS are responsible agencies under the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA), and both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine

whether endangered species have been adequately considered and to make project-specific

recommendations for their conservation.

Migratory Birds. State and federal law also protects most birds. The Federal Migratory Bird

Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading

in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the

Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.

Birds of Prey. Birds of prey are protected in California under provisions of the California Fish

and Game Code, section 3503.5, 1992. This section states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or

destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or

destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any

regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could

result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment.

Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a

taking by the CDFG.

Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters. Natural drainage channels and wetlands are

considered Waters of the United States (hereafter referred to as jurisdictional waters). The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the filling or grading of such waters by authority

of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1991). The extent of

jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by ordinary high water marks on opposing

channel banks. Wetlands are habitats with soils that are intermittently or permanently saturated,

or inundated. The resulting anaerobic conditions select for plant species known as hydrophytes

that show a high degree of fidelity to such soils. Wetlands are identified by the presence of

hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils (soils saturated intermittently or permanently saturated by

water), and wetland hydrology according to methodologies outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers

Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987).

All activities that involve the discharge of fill into jurisdictional waters are subject to the permit

requirements of the USACE (Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1991). Such permits are typically

issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss

of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the Regional Water Quality

Control Board (RWQCB) issues a certification (or waiver of such certification) that the proposed



activity will meet state water quality standards. The RWCQB is also responsible for enforcing

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including the General

Construction Activity Storm Water Permit.

CDFG has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages according to provisions of

section 1601 and 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities, which would disturb

these drainages, are regulated by the CDFG via a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such an

agreement typically stipulates that certain measures, which protect the habitat values of the

drainage in question, must be implemented.

California Environmental Quality Act

California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Appendix G indicates that a project may have

a significant effect on biological resources if it would:

have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any

species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional

plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service;

have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural

community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California

Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404

of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)

through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

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 native wildlife nursery sites;

conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree

preservation policy or ordinance; and/or

conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community

Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.

The above criteria were used to determine potentially significant impacts, and recommendations

have been developed to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.



1982 Monterey County General Plan and the Greater Salinas Area Plan

7.1.1 Development shall be carefully planned in, or adjacent to, areas containing limited or

threatened plant communities, and shall provide for the conservation and maintenance of

the plant communities.

9.1.1 Development shall be carefully planned in areas known to have particular value for wildlife

and, where allowed, shall be located so that the reasonable value of the habitat for wildlife

is maintained.

9.1.2 Development shall be carefully planned in areas having high value for fish and wildlife

reproduction.

9.2.1 Land use practices which could result in siltation and pollution of inland and marine

waters shall be carefully managed in order to assure a clean and productive habitat.

9.2.2 Projects that modify or otherwise impact inland waters and waterways shall be referred to

appropriate agencies for review, recommendations, and appropriate conditional permits.

16.2.3 All new development for which a discretionary permit is required, including filling,

grading, and construction, shall be prohibited within 200 feet of the riverbank or within the

100-year floodway except as permitted by ordinance. No new development, including

structural flood control projects, shall be allowed within the riparian corridor. However,

improvements to existing dikes and levees shall be allowed if riparian vegetation damage

can be minimized and at least an equivalent amount and quality of replacement is planted.

In addition, exceptions may be made for carefully sited recreational trails.

16.2.9 The County should condition all modifications to living riparian vegetation to be in

conformance with an overall approved river management plan. Where no such plan exists,

modification may only take place when in accord with an approved landscape plan

prepared by a licensed landscape architect or other qualified professional.

7.1.4 (GS) Riparian corridors should be preserved.

4.2 IMPACT EVALUATION

Protected Communities

There are two protected communities present within the project area: riparian woodland and

riverine aquatic.



Riverine Aquatic. Riverine aquatic habitat is a locally and regionally limited resource and is

protected by state and local regulations. Although no direct impacts to riverine aquatic habitat

are proposed as part of the project, indirect impacts could occur through erosion of adjacent

lands and downstream sedimentation, particularly during improvements to the access road

parallel to the River corridor and during grading within drainage channels leading to the River.

Impacts to riverine aquatic habitat during construction are considered potentially significant.

Implementation of the following recommendation measures would reduce this impact to less

than significant.

Recommendation Measures

BIO-1. In order protect aquatic biological resources and to reduce erosion on the project site

and risk of sedimentation downstream of the Salinas River, the City of Salinas will

prepare an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for site

preparation, construction, and post-construction periods. The erosion control plan may

include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following components:


likely;

b. Limit disturbance of soils and vegetation removal to the minimum area necessary

for access and construction;


d. Stockpile topsoil from grading activities to be used at the project site for re-

vegetation purposes;


f. Prevent storm water flow directly down unprotected slopes, devoid of vegetation,

by utilizing straw bales or diversion fencing; and

g. Ensure grading operations are observed and evaluated by a qualified soils engineer.

BIO-2. In order to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills occurring

during construction, and to protect on-site and downstream water quality and habitat,

the City of Salinas will prepare a spill abatement plan and hold a pre-construction

worker orientation meeting(s) to discuss the spill abatement plan. Workers will be

informed of the importance of preventing spills, and of the appropriate measures to

take should a spill occur. The materials necessary for the initial response to a spill will

be kept at an easily accessible location on the project site. Construction material debris,

including trash, will not be allowed within the setback area.




improvement plans. Biological resources protection mitigation measures will be made

part of the specifications of the construction design documents.

Riparian Woodland. Riparian woodland is a locally and regionally limited resource and is

protected by state and local regulations. Direct impacts to riparian habitat, such as the removal

of vegetation reduce the functional value of the riparian habitat. The Monterey County General

Plan includes several riparian protection policies, including 16.2.3, which requires a minimum

200 foot setback from a riverbank. The project site is currently developed within 200 feet of

riparian vegetation and the proposed project would not extend beyond what is currently being

maintained. No tree removal is proposed. With the implementation of measures BIO-1 and BIO-

2, above, impacts to riparian woodland are not expected. No additional recommendation

measures are necessary.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S

The Salinas River is located within and adjacent to the western boundary of the property. Two

ditches transect the property and empty to the River. The Salinas River and the ditches that flow

to the River are likely considered jurisdictional by the ACOE. There are no other rivers, streams,

or ponded areas that could be considered waters of the U.S. or wetlands present on the property.

Disturbance to the Salinas River or the ditches conveying water to the River would be

considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the following recommendation

measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Recommendation Measure

BIO-3. Prior to grading activities, a jurisdictional determination from the ACOE regarding the

ditches draining to the Salinas River is required. If these ditches are determined to be

jurisdictional, a Section 404 permit from the ACOE, a Streambed Alteration

Agreement from CDFG, and a Water Quality (401) Certification from the RWQCB

will be obtained. The appropriate permit for the proposed project on the project site is

Nationwide Permit 41 for Reshaping Existing Drainage Ditches. Nationwide Permit

41 requires Preconstruction Notification (PCN) for projects proposing to disturb

greater than 500 linear feet of drainage. To qualify for this permit, plans to enhance the

drainage ditch for improved downstream water quality are required.

Special Status Species

California red-legged frog. The ponds and ditches within the project area were analyzed during

two daytime and two nighttime surveys. No California red-legged frogs were observed during



any of the surveys, however, based on an assessment of the habitat present, the proximity of the

Salinas River, and the amphibians observed, it was determined that the project area could

provide suitable habitat for a small number of California red-legged frogs undetectable during the

two daytime and nighttime surveys. Due to frequent management of the ponds and ditches and

the lack of vegetation suitable breeding habitat is limited for California red-legged frog.

Implementation of the following recommendation measure would reduce potential impacts to

resident of migratory frogs to a less than significant level.



required as part of an ACOE Section 404 permit. The standard measures from the

USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion for ACOE Section 404 permits would be

appropriate to avoid and minimize adverse affects to CRLF if they are present in the

construction area. The standard measures (as applicable) are presented below.

a. At least 15 days prior to the onset of activities, the project proponent shall submit

the name(s) and credentials of biologists who would conduct activities specified in

the following measures. No project activities shall begin until proponents have

received written approval from the USFWS that the biologist(s) is qualified to

conduct the work.

b. A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the work site two weeks before the

onset of activities. If California red-legged frogs, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the

approved biologist shall contact the USFWS to determine if moving any of these

life-stages is appropriate. In making this determination, the USFWS shall consider

if an appropriate relocation site exists. If the USFWS approves moving animals,

the approved biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the work

site before work activities begin. Only USFWS -approved biologists shall

participate in activities associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of

California red-legged frogs.

c. Before any activities begin on a project, a USFWS-approved biologist shall conduct

a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training shall

include a description of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, the

importance of the California red-legged frog and its habitat, general measures that

are being implemented to conserve the California red-legged frog as they relate to

the project, and the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.

Brochures, books and briefings may be used in the training session, provided that a

qualified person is on hand to answer any questions.



d. A USFWS-approved biologist shall be present at the work site until such time as all


disturbance of habitat have been completed. After this time, the contractor or

permittee shall designate a person to monitor on-site compliance with all

minimization measures. The USFWS-approved biologist shall ensure that this

individual receives training outlined in measure c above and in the identification of

California red-legged frogs. The monitor and the USFWS-approved biologist shall

have the authority to halt any action that might result in impacts that exceed the

levels anticipated by the ACOE and USFWS during review of the proposed action.

If work is stopped, the ACOE and USFWS shall be notified immediately by the

USFWS -approved biologist or on-site biological monitor.

e. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators shall be properly


construction, all trash and construction debris shall be removed from work areas.

f. All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at

least 20 meters from any riparian habitat or water body. The ACOE and permittee

shall ensure contamination of habitat does not occur during such operations. Prior

to the onset of work, the ACOE shall ensure that the permittee has prepared a plan

to allow a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers shall

be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures

to take should a spill occur.

g. A USFWS-approved biologist shall ensure that the spread or introduction of

invasive exotic plant species shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible.




i. To control erosion during and after project implementation, the project proponent

shall implement best management practices, as identified by the appropriate

Regional Water Quality Control Board.

j. A USFWS-approved biologist shall permanently remove from within the project

area, any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid

fishes to the maximum extent possible. The permittee shall have the responsibility

to ensure that their activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game

Code.



Coast Range Newt. The Coast Range newt is a state listed species of concern. Coastal drainages

from Mendocino County south through the Coast Range to the western slope of the Peninsular

ranges in San Diego County. Lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1 km to breed in

ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. One dead newt was identified during the surveys.

Although full identification to species was not possible given the condition, based on the known

range of the species it is assumed that the individual was a Coast Range newt. The loss of

individuals of this species is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of

measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-4 would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant

level. Additional measures are not necessary.


concern. The steelhead is an anadromous form of rainbow trout that migrates upstream from the

ocean to spawn in the late fall or early winter, when flows are sufficient to allow them to reach

suitable habitat in far upstream areas. Spawning occurs between December and June in clear,

cool, perennial sections of relatively undisturbed streams. Preferred habitat includes streams with

a dense canopy cover that provides shade, woody debris, and organic matter. Steelhead may be

present in small numbers in the Salinas River however yearly flows in the lower reaches of the

river are extremely variable and water temperatures are inhospitably high during low-flow

periods. The proposed project does not propose encroachment into the river corridor and the

implementation of measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to this species to

a less than significant level. Additional measures are not necessary.


Monterey roach is a small minnow found primarily in small intermittent tributaries in coastal

watersheds. The Monterey roach is known to occur in the Salinas River watershed and may

occur in the reach within the project area. The proposed project does not propose encroachment

into the river corridor and the implementation of measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce

potential impacts to this species to a less than significant level. Additional measures are not

necessary.

Western pond turtle. Western pond turtle is listed as a CDFG “Species of Special Concern.”

Preferred habitat for this species includes calm waters such as streams or pools with vegetated

banks and basking sites such as logs or rocks. This species also needs basking sites and suitable

upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for egg-laying. Suitable basking habitat is

present in a number of locations along the Salinas River. Potential nesting habitat could occur

where relatively undisturbed herbaceous vegetation is present. The proposed project does not

propose encroachment into the river corridor and the implementation of measures BIO-1 and

BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to this species to a less than significant level. Additional

measures are not necessary.




Salinas River have the potential to provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds, such

as Cooper’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite, and red-tailed hawk,

which are known in the project vicinity. Birds may nest in trees and shrubs or on the ground. A

total of 836 bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the CDFG

(http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/intrnltr/mbta/mbtandx.html). Although no nesting

activity was observed during the site surveys, discussions with plant manager indicated that

nesting occurs within the riprap surrounding the ponds and vegetation along the drainage

ditches.

Trees located along the Salinas River have the potential to provide nesting habitat for raptors

and migratory birds. No evidence of nesting activity was observed in the trees during site

investigations. However, if active nest(s) of protected bird species should occur in the trees, any

construction and site preparation activities, if conducted during the nesting season, could result

in the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. The loss of individuals of these species or

abandonment of their nests would be a significant impact. Implementation of the following

recommendation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level.



occurring within 200 feet of trees located on and adjacent to the project area, the

project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a tree survey to determine

if active nest(s) of protected birds are present in the trees. Areas within 200 feet of the

construction zone that are not within the control of the applicant shall be visually

assessed from the project area. This survey shall be required only if any construction

would occur during the nesting and/or breeding season of protected bird species

potentially nesting in the tree (generally March 1 through August 1). If active nest(s)

are found, clearing and construction within 200 feet of the tree shall be postponed or

halted until the nest(s) are vacated and juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence

of a second attempt at nesting, at the discretion of the biologist. If construction

activities are not scheduled between March 1 and August 1, no further surveys of the

tree shall be required.

Roosting Bats. Trees present within the riparian corridor along the Salinas River can provide

roosting sites for bats such as the hoary bat. Additionally, bats may forage over water features at

both the Salinas River and the treatment ponds. Although no bats were identified during the

survey, trees present on the project site have the potential to provide roosting habitat. If there

were active roosts of protected bat species present, construction and site preparation activities

could result in the abandonment of an active roosting site or nest by the adults. Implementation



of the following recommendation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less than

significant level.


BIO-6. Monterey County Department of Public Works will conduct pre-construction surveys

for daytime or nighttime roost used by bats 30 days prior to demolition/construction

activities for each phase. Surveys may be conducted through visual assessment and/or

acoustical surveys. Alternatively, the construction schedule for these projects can be

modified to initiate construction outside of the nesting period (the nesting period is

typically April – August, or at the recommendation of a qualified biologist).

If nesting or roosting bats are found, the work schedule will be amended to allow for

bats to vacate the roosting or nesting habitat on their own. If this is infeasible, a

Memorandum of Understanding with the California Department of Fish and Game

will be obtained by the City of Salinas in order to remove bat species. Alternative

habitat will need to be provided if bats are to be excluded from maternity roosts. If this

is the case, a roost with comparable spatial and thermal characteristics will be

constructed and provided. California Department of Fish and Game will be consulted

regarding specific designs.

Wildlife Movement

Wildlife corridors provide connectivity between habitat areas, enhancing species richness and

diversity. In developing areas that contain defined movement corridors and/or are continuous

with adjacent open spaces areas, such as the undeveloped areas adjacent to the property, wildlife

corridors between natural areas take on added importance by providing cover, water, food, and

breeding sites. The proposed project would place development near a known migration route for

a number of migratory bird species. Lighting, tall buildings and antennae in particular pose

potential dangers to migratory birds. Therefore, the effects of development within the project

area on waterbirds and their movement patterns are potentially significant. Implementation of

the following recommendation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.


BIO-7. Subject to the review and approval of the City of Salinas, future development on the

project site shall conform to the following guidelines:

a. Buildings and antenna towers exceeding 35 feet shall not be allowed.



b. The use of continuously illuminated flood lamps that would attract birds shall be

avoided;

c. Navigational lights that flash for as short and infrequent an interval as possible

(one second on and nine seconds off has been suggested) shall be installed on all

tall structures that require lights;

d. If feasible, blue navigational lights as opposed to red, shall be used on tall

structures;

e. All guide wires associated with antenna towers shall be painted a bright color and

equipped at intervals with visually obvious objects (e.g. orange painted balls

several inches in diameter) in order to increase their visibility during the daylight

hours; and

f. Substitute measures that can be shown to be equally effective in preventing birds

from colliding into structures and wires may be used with the approval of the

approving agency.


5.0 REFERENCES AND

REPORT PREPARATION

5.1 REFERENCES

County of Monterey. Greater Salinas Area Plan. 1989.

County of Monterey. Monterey County General Plan. 1989.

Dana Bland and Associates. Salinas Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant – California red-legged frog

surveys. 2009.

Hickman, James C. (editor). The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of

California Press. 1993.

National Geographic Society. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. (Third Edition). 1999.

Skinner, Mark W. and Bruce M. Pavlik (Editors). Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants

of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. I (Sixth Edition).

2001.

State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. California Natural

Diversity Data Base Record Search, Salinas, Natividad, Marina, Moss Landing,

Prunedale, San Juan Bautista, Seaside, Spreckels, and Chualar quadrangles (April,

2009).

State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Special Animals List.

2009.

State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Special Vascular Plants,

Bryophytes, and Lichens List. 2009.

5.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARATION


U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Monterey County,

California. April 1978.

5.2 REPORT PREPARATION

Ron Sissem, Principal Planner

Report Preparation

Janet Ilse, Biologist/Senior Planner

Field Investigation

Report Preparation

APPENDIX A

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

ProjectLocation

2

1

4

3

Ditch between ponds leading to SalinasRiver

4

Ditch between adjacent agricultural land anddrying beds

3

View of Salinas River from northwest cornerof project area

2

View of wastewater treatment pond, levee road

1

Source: EMC Planning Group Inc. 2007 Appendix A


Site Photographs

UNOFFICIAL QUICK ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST SACRAMENTO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE

Database last updated: December 1, 2009Report Date: February 2, 2010

Listed SpeciesAmphibiansAmbystoma californiense

California tiger salamander, central population (T)

Rana aurora draytonii

California red-legged frog (T)

BirdsSternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni

California least tern (E)

MammalsVulpes macrotis mutica

San Joaquin kit fox (E)

Key:(E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction.

(T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.

(P) Proposed - Officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as endangered or threatened.

(NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Consult with them directly about these

species.

Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species.

(PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being proposed for it.

(C) Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species.

(V) Vacated by a court order. Not currently in effect. Being reviewed by the Service.

(X) Critical Habitat designated for this species

Unoffial Quick Endangered Species List, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/QuickList.cfm?ID=365B

1 of 1 2/2/2010 8:40 PM

Documents

CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT …...CITY OF SALINAS INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS CEQA MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM MARCH 12, 2010 Introduction