The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-07-17; Municipal Water District; ; Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supplemental Environmental Package, approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise and receive bidMeeting Date: To: From: Staff Contact: Subject CA Review 11\)C....- July 17, 2018 President and Board Members Kevin Crawford, Executive Manager Lindsay Leahy, Associate Engineer Lindsay.leahy@carlsbadca.gov or 760-603-7325 Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supplemental Environmental Package, approval of plans and specifications and authorization to advertise and receive bids for the Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5. Recommended Action Adopt a Resolution approving an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Supplemental Environmental Package, and approving plans and specifications and authorizing the secretary to the Board to advertise and receive bids for the Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B. Executive Summary Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B (Project) is part of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District's (CMWD) $37 million Phase Ill Recycled Water Program (Program). The majority of the Project will provide recycled water to customers along El Camino Real, north of Chestnut Avenue, Tamarack Avenue, Marron Road, and Cannon Road (Recycled Water Project). Additionally, the Project includes the replacement of potable water mains (Potable Water Project) within the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields HOAs to meet current CMWD standards. These water mains will be replaced under CMWD's Miscellaneous Pipeline Replacements, CIP No. 3904. Carlsbad Municipal Code subsections 3.28.080(() and (E) requires the Board to adopt plans and specifications for all construction projects when the value exceeds $175,000. The estimated construction cost for this Project is $12,652,900 and therefore is subject to this requirement. Staff recommends approving an addendum to the MND and CEQA Plus document, approving the plans and specifications and authorizing the secretary to the Board to advertise and receive bids. Discussion CMWD started its Recycled Water Program in 1990 with Phase I. The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) was constructed beginning in 2002 as part of Phase II expansion. At the completion of Phase II, recycled water production was approximately 4 million gallons per day (mgd). In 2012, Phase Ill began with the preparation of a feasibility study, which recommended July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 1 of 223 an expansion of the CWRF to 7 mgd, 18 miles of new pipeline, and construction of a 1.5-million- gallon storage tank. Currently, only the storage tank and 6 miles of pipeline remain to be constructed. The Recycled Water Project includes the construction of approximately 29,500 linear feet of 6- inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) recycled water pipeline and services. This work includes the installation of pipelines along Tamarack Avenue from Skyline Road to Kirkwall Avenue, Kelly Drive, Marron Road, Haymar Drive, and El Camino Real from Chestnut Avenue to Haymar Drive. In addition to the work on Segment 5, the Recycled Water Project includes approximately 1,400 linear feet of 8-inch diameter and 500 linear feet of 6-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) recycled water pipeline and services along Cannon Road for Segment 2 and a reach of Segment 7 in the Calavera Hills area. Recycled water served from these pipeline segments will be used for landscape irrigation. The Potable Water Project includes the construction of approximately 1,850 linear feet of 8- inch diameter and 4,100 linear feet of 6-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) potable water pipeline and services. The water main improvements will be completed in the vicinity of the Segment 5 recycled water work and will be included in this Project to minimize construction impacts to residents and capitalize on construction savings due to economies of scale. The improvements will be completed within the Palisades development near Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real, and throughout the development on Flower Fields Way off Avenida de Anita. The Project includes extensions of the Program Segment 5 and 7 pipelines and the Potable Water Project. These modifications were not originally analyzed in the MND prepared for the Program (EIA 12-02, adopted Nov. 27, 2012). Accordingly, an addendum to the MND (Addendum) has been prepared and submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2012091049) for a 15-day public review. In addition, a supplement to the federal cross cutter evaluation form (Supplemental Environmental Package) was prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as part of the requirements for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program. The Addendum and Supplemental Environmental Package is attached to Exhibit 1 of this Staff Report. Fiscal Analysis An engineer's estimate of the construction cost of the Recycled. Water Project is $7,276,000. The total estimated Project cost of $9,458,800 includes: construction contract, contingency for change order management, construction management and inspection, engineering and administrative support for contractor shop drawings, request for information, meetings, and community outreach. The Recycled Water Project is being funded by the Clean Water State · Revolving Fund (SRF). An engineer's estimate of the construction cost of the Potable Water Project is $2,457,000. The total estimated Project cost of $3,194,100 includes: construction contract, contingency for change order management, construction management and inspection, engineering and administrative support for contractor shop drawings, request for information, meetings, and community outreach. July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 2 of 223 A summary of estimated construction costs and available funds are shown in the tables below: RECYCLED WATER PHASE Ill -PIPELINES, CIP NO. 5208 Current Appropriation -Recycled Water Phase Ill -Pipelines, CIP No. 5208 $21,197,529 Current Expenditures/Encumbrances -Recycled Water Phase Ill -Pipelines, $7,362,284 CIP No. 5208 TOTAL AVAILABLE RECYCLED WATER PHASE Ill -PIPELINES, CIP NO. 5208 $13,835,245 RECYLCED WATER PHASE Ill PIPELINE EXPANSION SEGMENT 5, PROJECT NO. 5208-B Construction Contract (estimated) $7,276,000 Construction Contingency (estimated) $1,091,400 Construction Management, Inspection, and Material Testing (estimated) $1,091,400 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $9,458,800 REMAINING BALANCE AFTER PROJECT NO. 5208-B $4,376,445 ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION NEEDED $0 MISCELLANEOUS PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS, CIP NO. 3904 Current Appropriation -Miscellaneous Pipeline Replacements, CIP No. 3904 $3,933,000 Current Expenditures/Encumbrances -Miscellaneous Pipeline Replacements, $707,260 CIP No. 3904 TOTAL AVAILABLE MISCELLANEOUS PIPELINE REPLACEMENTS, CIP NO. 3904 $3,225,740 RECYLCED WATER PHASE Ill PIPELINE EXPANSION SEGMENT 5, PROJECT NO. 5208-B {POTABLE WATER PROJECT) Construction Contract (estimated) $2,457,000 Construction Contingency (estimated) $368,550 Construction Management, Inspection, and Material Testing (estimated) $368,550 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $3,194,100 REMAINING BALANCE AFTER PROJECT NO. 5208-B $31,640 ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION NEEDED ' $0 Once final bids are received, staff will re-evaluate the Project funding to determine whether an additional appropriation request for Council's consideration is required at the time of contract award. Next Steps A construction contract request for bids will be advertised on the city website. Staff will then return to the Board to recommend awarding a contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Construction is estimated to begin in the Fall of 2018 and finish by Spring 2020. Environmental Eva luation (CEQA) An environmental impact assessment was conducted for the Program and a MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program {MMRP) was adopted by the CMWD Board through Resolution No. 1455, on Nov. 27, 2012 {SCH No. 2012091004). I July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 3 of 223 The Project includes extensions of Segment 5, the Segment 7 reach and the Potable Water Project that were not originally analyzed in the MND prepared for the Program (EIA 12-02, adopted November 27, 2012). Accordingly, an Addendum was prepared and it was determined that none of the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have been triggered and the use of an addendum is appropriate. The Addendum was submitted to the SCH (SCH No. 2012091049) for a 15-day public review. Additionally, the Recycled Water Project is being funded by the SWRCB SRF Program, which is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and subject to federal environmental regulations. To incorporate the changes to Segment 5 and Segment 7, the city submitted a Supplemental Environmental Package that was part of the 2013 SWRB CWSRF (CWSRF No. C-0607899-110) environmental package component of the loan application form to the SWRCB. The Project is a sub-component of the Phase Ill Recycled Water Program, as modified, and is subject to the Mitigation Measures that are identified in the Program MMRP. The Project, including as documented in the addendum, is within the scope of the prior environmental documents and there are no substantial changes to the Project or the circumstances under which it is being undertaken, no new information of substantial importance, and no new or more sever environmental effects that would require major revisions to these environmental documents. Therefore, no further environmental review is required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the environmental documents, as well as additional SWRCB requirements, have been incorporated into the construction documents. Public Notification This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date. Prior to the start of construction, the public will be notified of the construction activities using media methods such as signage, email, website and other city communication channels. The construction contractor will also be required to notify the public of construction activities via changeable message signs, door hangers, letters to property owners, and/or "NO PARKING" signs, as applicable. Exhibits 1. CMWD Board Resolution. 2. Location Map. 3. Project plans, specifications, and bid documents are on file at the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 4 of 223 RESOLUTION NO. 1601 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD (CMWD), APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PACKAGE, AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD TO ADVERTISE AND RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE RECYCLED WATER PHASE Ill PIPELINE EXPANSION SEGMENT 5, PROJECT NO. 5208-B. EXHIBIT 1 WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Board of Directors of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined it necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to install approximately 1,400 linear feet of 8-inch diameter and 30,000 linear feet of 6-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) recycled water pipeline and 1,850 linear feet of 8-inch diameter and 4,100 linear feet of 6-inch PVC potable water pipeline; and WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, equipment, transportation, and other expenses necessary or incidental for the Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, have been prepared and are on file at CMWD and are incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, an environmental impact assessment was conducted for the Phase Ill Recycled Water Program, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was approved by the Board through Resolution No. 1455, on Nov. 27, 2012; WHEREAS, an Addendum to the MND and Supplemental Environmental Package including a supplement to the federal cross cutter evaluation form was prepared to document the changes to the project scope and it was determined that none of the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have been triggered, and all applicable mitigation measures contained in the environmental documents have been incorporated into the construction documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CMWD Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supplemental Environmental Package is hereby approved and attached hereto as Attachment A. July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 5 of 223 3. That the plans, specifications and contract documents for the Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, on file at CMWD are hereby approved. 4. That the secretary to the Board is hereby authorized and directed to publish, in accordance with State law, a Notice to Contractors Inviting Bids for the construction of the Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, in accordance with the plans, specifications, and contract documents referred herein. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the 17th day of J.!!!y, 2018, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: M. Hall, K. Blackburn, M. Schumacher, C. Schumacher, M. Packard. None. None. M~ (SEAL) July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 6 of 223 ADDENDUM TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012 State Clearinghouse No. 2012091049 Prepared for: Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 March 30, 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 8 of 223 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Introduction/Project Background ......................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Description and Location .......................................................................................................... 1 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 2 3. Purpose of the Addendum .................................................................................................................... 2 4. Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 4 Agriculture/Forestry Resources ................................................................................................................ 6 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 8 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 11 Geology/Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 14 Hazards & Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................................. 15 Hydrology/Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 17 Land Use/Planning .................................................................................................................................. 18 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................................. 20 Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 20 Population and Housing ..................................... : .................................................................................... 22 Public Services .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 23 Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................................................ 23 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................................. 24 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................................ 25 5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 26 6. References .......................................................................................................................................... 27 CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 9 of 223 1. Introduction/Project Background This document is an Addendum to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted IS/MND) for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Approved Project; EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012, SCH No. 2012091049; CMWD 2012a). The project evaluated potential impacts associated with implementation of Phase Ill of CMWD's 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP). The Adopted IS/MND tiered from the Program EIR {12-01) for the 2012 City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR 12-01; SCH No. 2012021006; CMWD 2012b). Phase Ill proposed expanding the treatment capacity within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. In addition, Phase Ill proposed the installation of 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocation or construction of a new storage tank, conversion of existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofits of landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area. The Approved Project was adopted by the CMWD Board of Directors on November 27, 2012 (CMWD Agenda Bill 760, Resolution No. 1433). The Program EIR (12-01) and Adopted IS/MND (EIA 12-02), including supporting documents, are hereby incorporated by reference. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that potentially significant environmental impacts could occur to biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials; however, with the implementation of the Project's mitigation measures impacts would be less than significant. In 2013, subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND, the CMWD prepared an Evaluation Form for Environmental Review and Federal Coordination as part ofthe State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) CEQA-Plus requirements and CMWD's Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (SRF Program) application (CMWD 2013). The evaluation form concluded that the Approved Project would not result in adverse effects associated with compliance with federal regulations. 2. Project Description and Location The CMWD is currently proposing modifications (proposed modifications) to the Approved Project, which is the subject of this Addendum. The proposed modifications include: • Two extensions would be added to the Segment 5 pipelines; one extension would extend the pipeline northeast on Tamarack Avenue; the other extension would branch off the Marron Road pipeline north on Monroe Street (see Figure 1, Pipeline Improvements). • An extension to the Segment 7 pipeline would be added on Tamarack Avenue that would connect a gap in the previously proposed Segment 7 pipelines (see Figure 1). • New potable water pipelines, ranging in size from 6-inches to 8-inches in diameter, would be installed in the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (see Figure 1; hereafter referred to as Palisades potable water pipelines and Flower Fields potable water pipelines). The pipelines would be installed parallel to the existing potable water pipelines, which would be abandoned in place. • The LS-million gallon (MG) storage tank is proposed to be located on the vacant, pre-graded pad southeast of the existing 8.5 MG storage tank on the D Tank site, near Black Rail Road (see Figure 2, Storage Tank Relocation). The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 1 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 11 of 223 adjacent to the site. This location is approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed tank location. The proposed storage tank would have security lighting. The proposed modifications would comply with applicable mitigation measures included in the Adopted IS/MND (Attachment A), as well as the regulatory compliance and project design and construction features included in the Adopted IS/MND (Appendix A of Attachment A). In addition, the proposed modifications would implement a construction best management practice (BMP) to provide archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas of the proposed modifications that intersect with known cultural sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them. Environmental Setting The surrounding land uses for the extension to Segment 5 along Tamarack Avenue are single-family residences to the east and a Boat/RV storage facility to the west. The alignment is at an elevation of approximately 235 to 268 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The extension to Segment 5 on Monroe Street is surrounded on both sides by commercial development, with the North County Plaza to the west and The Shoppes at Carlsbad to the east. Buena Vista Creek is located approximately 50 feet north of the northern end of the pipeline. The alignment is at an elevation of approximately 21 to 23 feet AMSL. The Tamarack Avenue extension for Segment 7 has single-family residences and open space adjacent on both sides of the pipeline. The alignment is at an elevation ranging from approximately 179 to 203 feet AMSL. The Palisades potable water pipelines are located within internal roadways for single-family residences. The area is surrounded by single-family residences. The neighborhood is bisected by Tamarack Avenue and adjacent to part of the existing Segment 5 alignment. The elevation of the pipeline alignment would range from 100 feet to 150 feet AMSL. The Flower Fields potable water pipelines are located within internal roadways for multi-family residences. Open space is located to north and east and multi-family residences are located to the south and west. The area is surrounded by single-family residences. The neighborhood is adjacent to part of the existing Segment 5 alignment. The elevation of the pipeline alignment would range from 100 feet to 120 feet AMSL. The surrounding land uses for the storage tank include single-family residences to the east and south, other existing CMWD potable and recycled water storage reservoirs to the west, and a church to the north. The site is at an elevation of approximately 375 feet AMSL. 3. Purpose of the Addendum As outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an Addendum to a previously certified MND may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred. The CMWD has determined that an Addendum to the Adopted IS/MND is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA for the proposed modifications. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 2 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 12 of 223 Under CEQA, an Addendum to a previously adopted IS/MND may be prepared by either a lead or responsible agency if the conditions described above are satisfied. As a result, once an IS/MND has been certified, a subsequent or supplemental MND may only be prepared if one of the following conditions has been met (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)): (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous MND was adopted, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND; C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This Addendum has been prepared by the CMWD because the construction and operation of the proposed modifications is consistent with the overall project evaluated in the Adopted IS/MND and does not require major revisions to the Adopted IS/MND due to new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed modifications, as explained in detail in the following analysis, have been analyzed and mitigated accordingly in the Adopted IS/MND, and there have been no new circumstances since that time that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. As evaluated in the supporting analysis of this Addendum, mitigation measures that were previously identified in the Adopted IS/MND would continue to ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the Adopted 15/MND. Prior to its consideration of the proposed modifications, the CMWD will review and consider this Addendum together with the Adopted 15/MND when making a decision regarding the proposed modifications. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 3 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 15 of 223 4. Environmental Analysis Documents containing the environmental analysis supporting the CMWD's action in approving the proposed modifications include the Adopted IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as well as updated Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2018; Attachment B) and the Cultural Resources Addendum Report (ASM 2018; Attachment C). This Addendum analyzes all 18 environmental issue areas that were included in the Adopted IS/MND, plus Tribal Cultural Resources, and discusses whether the proposed modifications described above would trigger significance criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163, in each of these areas. • Aesthetics • Agriculture/Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources • Geology/Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology/Water Quality • Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems • Mandatory Findings For each environmental issue area, this Addendum provides a comparative analysis ofthe impacts presented in the Adopted IS/MND. The analysis includes a determination regarding the occurrence of new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Finally, an analysis is presented to determine whether there are any changed circumstances or new information relative to the proposed modifications. For each environmental issue area, the following is provided to conduct this comparative analysis: 1. Previous Analysis 2. Analysis of the Revised Project 3. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance 4. Conclusion The following environmental analysis supports the CMWD's determination that approval and implementation of the proposed modifications would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts covered under the CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 4 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 16 of 223 Adopted 15/MND and related MMRP. This environmental analysis is subject to all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Adopted 15/MND and MMRP. The following presents the environmental analysis of impacts associated with the proposed modifications. In instances where the impacts resulting from several proposed modification components would be similar, their corresponding analyses have been grouped together. In instances where impacts differ by proposed modification component, they are discussed separately. Aesthetics Previous Analysis Analysis of aesthetic impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 1, pages 15-22 through 15-23. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that expansion and relocation ofthe storage tank site would not result in temporary construction impacts because it would be isolated from public view. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that aesthetic impacts from construction activities for the expansion segments would be a substantial adverse change in existing visual character. In the Adopted 15/MND, the CMWD committed to the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND (Attachment A) to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding neighborhoods, which includes removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing setting, and restoring disturbed areas following construction. With implementation of these measures, construction visual impacts would be less than significant. No operational visual impacts were determined to occur as the pipelines would be below ground. The storage tank would be painted with low-glare coatings so that reflection is kept to a minimum. No new lighting or glare sources were proposed. Further, the tank would be located within an existing facility that contains two 1.5-MG tanks and an 8.5-MG tank (the D-tank site), therefore it would be consistent with the character of the site. Analysis of the Revised Project Pipeline Improvements The pipeline improvements would result in similar impacts to the expansion segments analyzed in the Adopted 15/MND. As the pipelines will be installed below-ground, no visual impacts would occur after construction. Similar to the Adopted 15/MND, aesthetic impacts from construction activities for the pipeline improvements would result in a substantial adverse change in existing visual character. The proposed modifications would implement the construction features listed in Appendix A ofthe Adopted 15/MND to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding neighborhoods. With implementation of these measures, impacts would be less than significant from construction of the pipeline improvements. Storage Tank Site Relocation The storage tank would be located within a graded pad directly southeast ofthe existing 8.5-MG steel tank, approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed site. The currently proposed location is in an area more visible to public view from Poinsettia Lane and Fisherman Drive than the location analyzed in the Adopted 15/MND and would likely maintain a similar visibility from New Crest Court and Black Rail CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 5 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 17 of 223 Road as the previous location. However, the tank would be located next to multiple storage tanks of similar or larger bulk and scale that are currently visible from the surrounding roadways. Therefore, the relocated storage tank would be consistent with the existing visual character and quality of the area, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, construction activities may be more visible to viewers from Poinsettia lane than the location analyzed in the Adopted 15/MND. As with the pipeline extensions in the Adopted IS/MND, the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND would be implemented to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding neighborhoods, which includes removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing setting, and restoring disturbed areas following construction. Security lighting would also be provided; to minimize lighting impacts, the lighting would be shielded down and would not spill into the adjacent residential properties. With implementation of these measures, construction visual impacts from the storage tank would be less than significant. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to visual or aesthetic resources. No substantial changes in the aesthetic or visual environment have occurred since adoption of the 15/MND, and no substantial new sensitive receptors or scenic resources have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed modifications. Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Implementation of construction features identified in the Adopted IS/MND would ensure that temporary and permanent visual impacts would remain less than significant. Therefore, the impacts to aesthetic resources and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163. Agriculture/Forestry Resources Previous Analysis Analysis of agriculture/forestry resources impacts are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 2, pages IS-23 through IS-24. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that pipeline expansion and relocation of the storage tank would not result in impacts to agricultural or forestry resources, as the expansion and storage tank would not be located in agricultural or forest land areas and would not convert existing agricultural or forest land areas to different uses. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not be located in agricultural or forest land areas and would have no impact to those resources. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 6 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 18 of 223 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to agriculture or forestry resources. No substantial changes to these resources have occurred since adoption of the 15/MND, and no substantial new agricultural or forestry r~sources have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed modifications. Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant agriculture or forestry resources impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to agriculture and forestry resources from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163. Air Quality Previous Analysis Analysis of air quality impacts ofthe Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 3, pages 15-25 through 15-28. These sections outline how the Approved Project may impact existing and future air quality conditions. For the criteria pollutant emissions analysis, the Adopted 15/MND relied on the emission calculations within the Program EIR, which included the Phase Ill components. Modeling for criteria pollutant emissions within the Program EIR (12-01) included a conservative scenario where 12 sewer pipelines, 13 potable water pipelines, 1 tank, 1 pump station, the CWRF, and 70,850 feet of recycled water pipelines would be constructed in one year. The Approved Project would implement the construction features for minimizing criteria pollutant emissions, as described in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND. With implementation of these construction features, the Adopted 15/MND determined that the Approved Project was consistent with applicable air quality plans, and the modeled Approved Project emissions would not exceed local significance thresholds. Therefore, the Adopted 15/MND concluded that impacts to air quality as a result of construction and operation ofthe Approved Project were less than significant. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Construction of the storage tank would result in the same emissions, as the tank would be the same size as proposed in the Adopted 15/MND. In addition, operation of the storage tank would not require equipment that would generate criteria air pollutants, as with the tank proposed in the Adopted 15/MND. Construction of the proposed pipeline improvements would result in temporary increases in criteria pollutant emissions associated with soil disturbance, dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from personal vehicles, vendor/delivery trucks, and off-site trucks hauling soil and aggregate material. However, the project would implement the construction CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 7 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 19 of 223 features for air quality, as listed in Appendix A ofthe Adopted 15/MND, and the maximum daily construction emissions resulting from the proposed modifications would not exceed the adopted San Diego Air Pollution Control District significance thresholds and would not increase the construction related criteria pollutant emissions from what was previously evaluated in the Adopted 15/MND. In addition, the underground pipelines would not require regular maintenance and operation would not generate criteria air pollutants. Therefore, similar to the findings of the Adopted 15/MND, the construction-related criteria air pollution emissions from the proposed modifications would be temporary and would not be expected to have a significant impact on ambient air quality. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There are no changes wit h respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to air quality. No substantial changes to air quality circumstances have occurred since adoption of the 15/MND. Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant air quality impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to air quality from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163. Biological Resources Previous Analysis Analysis of biological resources impacts and identified mitigation measures of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 4, pages 15-28 through 15-35. A focused biological resources study was also prepared in 2013 by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX), after adoption of the 15/MND, to provide specific biological resources information pertaining to federal requirements in fulfilling SWRCB CEQA-Plus requirements for the CMWD's SRF Program application. As discussed in the Adopted 15/MND, the Approved Project components have been designed to be restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility right-of-way (ROW) areas, access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. The Adopted 15/MND determined that the areas being considered for construction of Approved Project components do not support high quality biological resources, and the Approved Project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive biological resources, including those resources protected under federal policy. However, several of the Approved Project components were determined to occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, and potential indirect impacts to these resources (e.g., construction noise and vibration, run off, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel) were determined to occur during construction. These would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF for special-status wildlife species impacts and Bio-18 through Bio-lF for sensitive natural communities and wetlands impacts. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 8 _March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 20 of 223 As discussed in the focused biological resources study, and similar to the Adopted IS/MND findings, for federal conformance the Approved Project components were determined to result in indirect impacts to federally-listed species. These impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through Adopted IS/MND mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF. Construction ofthe Approved Project components was determined to potentially result in impacts to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act from removal of trimming of trees and shrubs during the breeding season; this impact would be mitigated through mitigation measure Bio-lA. In addition, with conformance with the BMPs described in the focused biological resources study for runoff and water quality, the Approved Project was determined to be consistent with the Clean Water Act. The study also concluded that the Approved Project components would be in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications An Addendum Report to the focused biological resources study and Adopted IS/MND biological analysis was prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (Biological Resources Addendum Report; HELIX, dated February 21, 2018; Attachment B) to analyze the biological resource impacts of the proposed modifications. The analysis from the Biological Resources Addendum Report is incorporated below. Pipeline Improvements Similar to the Phase Ill sites analyzed in the Approved Project's IS/MND, the proposed modifications occur entirely within existing development or in developed roads surrounded by existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. No direct impacts would occur to state-and federally- listed species. However, undeveloped land occurs to the north of the new section of Segment 5 on Monroe Street, west of Segment 5 on Tamarack Avenue (coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland), and west of Segment 7, northeast of Segment 5, on Tamarack Avenue. The potable water pipelines occur adjacent to ornamental landscaped vegetation. Similar to the Approved Project components, in these areas the pipeline improvements may result in potentially significant indirect impacts to native habitat that could support special-status wildlife species through construction noise and vibration and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel. With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, impacts to special-status wildlife species from the pipeline improvements would be less than significant. Wetland habitats associated with Buena Vista Creek are present to the north of the new section of Segment 5 on Monroe Street. Coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland is present west of the new section of Segment 5 on Tamarack Avenue. Construction activities associated with project modifications in Segment 5 could result in potential runoff and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would be considered significant. Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas for Segment 5 would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the Adopted IS/MND and compliance with applicable regulations, including through implementation of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio- 18, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and wetlands and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 9 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 21 of 223 The Segment 7 extension arid the potable water pipelines would not be located near sensitive natural communities or wetlands. Storage Tank Site Relocation The storage tank would be constructed on a graded development pad. The site is characterized by sparse, primarily non-native (weedy) and ornamental vegetation. Some large trees, including eucalyptus, are present within the facility. Construction noise and vibration may occur at the storage tank site that may indirectly impact nesting birds and raptors. Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. As the project is located adjacent to landscaped and/or developed areas, it would not significantly impact sensitive natural communities. Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad for the storage tank. Cracked soils and three plant species that typically occupy ponded areas were observed, none of which is considered an indicator species for vernal pools. The bodies of seed shrimp also were noted in this area. Compaction of the pad and a small earthen berm around the edge of this pad are likely responsible for the observed ponding. Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this area would not be considered federally jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development pad, the absence of vernal pool indicators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential for any listed species, this feature is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter- Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the city. The storage tank would have security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into sensitive biological areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant. The graded pad has a small berm at the downslope edge to restrict water runoff. Potential indirect effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may occur if runoff from construction work areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that discharge into . downstream wetland areas. Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities for the storage tank would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the Adopted IS/MND and compliance with applicable regulations, including through implementation of a project-specific SWPPP. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-lB, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and wetlands and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Conclusion The Biological Resources Addendum Report identified the pipeline improvements and storage tank as having potentially significant biological resource impacts, whereas the Adopted IS/MND did not find potentially significant impacts for the storage tank site or Segment 7. However, these impacts would be mitigated to less than significant with mitigation measures previously identified in the Adopted IS/MND. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding biological resources which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted and the focused biological resources study was prepared. Therefore, the biological resource impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 10 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 22 of 223 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Previous Analysis Analysis of cultural resources impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 5, pages IS-36 through IS-37. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that due to the high cultural resource sensitivity in the Approved Project area, unknown cultural resources may be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities. The Adopted IS/MND determined that with implementation of the cultural resources procedures, including the regulatory compliance and project construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, cultural resource impacts would be less than significant. A Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared in 2014 by ASM Affiliates Inc. (ASM), after adoption of the IS/MND, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the CEQA Plus analysis. The inventory determined that although four previously recorded cultural sites were found within a 0.25-mile radius of ES 7, only one archaeological site is within the pipeline alignment. Additionally, although there were four recorded locations near the proposed location of the storage tank, the site had previously been graded and no additional ground disturbance was anticipated. No monitoring was recommended provided that the ground was not disturbed. However, the cultural resource inventory determined that there was a possibility of encountering cultural materials during the trenching for portions of Segment 5, as 18 prerecorded sites were found within 0.25-mile of the pipeline alignment, and two archaeological sites are within the pipeline alignment. Therefore, an archaeological monitoring program was recommended during the trenching for portions of Segment 5 and 7, along with a treatment plan in the event of any unanticipated archaeological discoveries. The overall findings of the report concluded that there would be no adverse effects to historic properties. According to the Adopted IS/MND, Approved Project components, such as Segment 5 and 7, would be in areas of high paleontological sensitivity (Santiago formation). However, since Approved Project components would occur within existing roadway ROW that has already been disturbed, additional impacts from the Approved Project would not occur. Impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that impacts from disturbance of human remains during construction would be less than significant with conformance of the required protocols under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.97 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications An Addendum Report to the Class I cultural resource inventory, dated March 26, 2018, was prepared by ASM (Attachment C) to analyze the cultural resource sensitivity ofthe proposed modifications. The records search for the inventory found four previously recorded sites in the project area for the proposed modifications (one site intersecting the Segment 5 extension [SDl-10025]; one site intersecting both the Segment 5 extension and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines [SDl-6139]; one site intersecting the storage tank [SDl-6819]; and one site intersecting the Segment 7 extension [SDl-5601]). The Addendum Report determined that cultural resources within SDl-6139 (Segment 5 and Flower Fields potable water pipelines) were no longer identified as significant in recent surveys due to absence of site integrity and limited artifact density and diversity. In a recent survey, SDl-10025 (Segment 5) was determined to be severely impacted and would not have significant cultural resources. SDl-5601 CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 11 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 23 of 223 (Segment 7} has previously undergone a testing and data recovery program due to residential development in the area, and a recent survey determined the rest of the site to not have significant cultural resources. SDl-6819, located near the storage tank site, had undergone artifact recovery prior to construction ofthe existing tanks and pads on site. This site was recently tested and determined to not contain significant cultural resources. In addition, the proposed modifications would implement the cultural resource procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, which includes retaining a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor if subsurface cultural resources are encountered or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered. Further, the proposed modifications would provide archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas that intersect with known archaeological sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts to cultural resources from the proposed modifications. Parts of Segment 5 and Segment 7 were identified as being within a high paleontological sensitivity area; therefore, the Segment 5 and Segment 7 extensions may be in these areas. However, as with the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would occur within existing roadway ROW that has already been disturbed, and significant impacts from the proposed modifications would not occur. Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would implement the required protocols under Public Resources Code (PRC} Section 5097.97 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 if human remains are encountered; therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant. The IS/MND was adopted prior to passage of Assembly Bill (AB} 52, which requires analysis and outreach for tribal cultural resources as part of environmental review in compliance with CEQA. The 2014 cultural resource inventory conducted tribal outreach to determine if cultural resources of cultural concern were located in the area; no responses were received. In addition, through the implementation of the cultural resource procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND described above, monitoring would be required in areas that intersect with known archaeological sites that may contain tribal cultural resources. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in cultural or paleontological resource conditions within the area of the proposed modifications since the time of adoption of the IS/MND and the Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding cultural or paleontological resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to cultural or paleontological resources have been identified. Conclusion None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to cultural resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new ' information of substantial importance regarding cultural resources which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted and the Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared. Therefore, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources as a result ofthe proposed CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 12 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 24 of 223 modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. Geology/Soils Previous Analysis Analysis of geology/soils impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 6, pages IS-38 through IS-40. The Adopted IS/MND found that although the Approved Project components would be located in a seismically active area, that through implementing the relevant requirements of the California Building Code and the California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, impacts related to ground shaking would be less than significant. The Adopted IS/MND determined that Segment 5 and 7 were located in areas of high landslide risk, or areas that may have unstable soil. With implementation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation, as described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, landslide and unstable soil impacts were concluded to be less than significant. Earth disturbing activities from the storage tank construction would not result in the exposure of soils. Through compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Append ix A of the Adopted IS/MND, including the General Linear Utility Permit and/or local development standards and preparation of a SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, erosion impacts would be less than significant. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would be located in a seismically active area. As with the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would also implement the relevant requirements of the California Building Code and the California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117. Therefore, ground shaking impacts would be less than significant. ' The Segment 5 extension, on Monroe Street, would be located in an area of unstable soil (potential for liquefaction), according to Figure 3.5-3 of the City General Plan EIR, dated June 2015-(SCH #2011011004). The remaining Segment 5 extensions, the Segment 7 extension, the potable water pipelines, and the storage tank would not be located in these areas. Each proposed modification would perform a site-specific geotechnical investigation, as described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, that would identify geologic and soil hazards and provide typical measures to accommodate the hazards. With implementation of the geotechnical investigations, impacts from geologic and soil hazards would be less than significant. As the storage tank would be constructed in a previously graded pad, earth-disturbing activities may result in exposure of soils to erosion. In addition, the pipeline improvements may result in exposure of soils to erosion. Similar to the Approved Project components, compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, including the General Linear Utility Permit and/or local development standards and preparation of a SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, erosion impacts from the proposed modifications would be less than significant. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. Addendum 13 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 25 of 223 Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in geology and soil conditions within the area of the proposed modifications since the time of adoption of the 15/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding known geological and soil hazards, conditions, or resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to geology and soil resources have been identified. Conclusion None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to geology and soils within the Adopted 15/MND. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding geological resources which was not known and could not have been known when the 15/MND was adopted. Therefore, the geology and soils impacts from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Previous Analysis Analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 7, pages 15-40 through 15-41. For the GHG emissions analysis, the Adopted 15/MND relied on the GHG emission calculations within the Master Plans Program EIR (CMWD, EIR 12-01, 2012b), which included the Phase Ill components. Modeling for GHG emissions within the Program EIR included a conservative scenario where 12 sewer pipelines, 13 potable water pipelines, 1 tank, 1 pump station, the CWRF, and 70,850 feet of recycled water pipelines would be constructed in one year. Construction emissions totaled 959 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT C02e) per year. This value did not exceed the 2,500 MT C02e threshold. Since the Approved Project would construct fewer components than were analyzed in the Program EIR, it was assumed that GHG emissions associated with construction would be less, and would not exceed the GHG threshold. Pipelines and storage tanks would not require fuel or energy once constructed and therefore would not emit GHGs. Operational emissions were primarily associated with the CWRF facility and were less than significant. In addition, as the Approved Project would not exceed the GHG threshold, the Approved Project was determined to be consistent with applicable GHG plans, policies, and regulations. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Construction of the storage tank was accounted for in the GHG emissions modeling scenario reported in the Adopted 15/MND and would not change due to the relocation of the tank. The new pipeline extensions would add additional pipelines to be constructed that would increase the overall GHG emissions of the Approved Project. However, the additional length associated with the extensions, which is approximately 7,800 feet, would be well below the total amount of construction for recycled water pipelines that was assumed in the modeled scenario in the Program EIR. The estimated CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 14 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 26 of 223 GHG emissions under the conservative scenario were well below the 2,500 MT C02e threshold. Therefore, the proposed modifications' GHG emissions would be expected to have a minor effect on the Approved Project's GHG emissions and would not cause the emissions to exceed the threshold analyzed in the Adopted 15/MND. Therefore, GHG emissions from the proposed modifications would be less than significant. As the proposed modifications' GHG emissions would not exceed the GHG threshold, the modifications would also be consistent with applicable GHG plans, policies, and regulations. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in GHG emissions conditions for the proposed modifications since the time of adoption of the 15/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding GHG emissions has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to GHG emissions have been identified. Conclusion None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to GHG emissions. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding GHG emissions that was not known and could not have been known when the 15/MND was adopted. Therefore, the GHG emissions impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. Hazards & Hazardous Materials Previous Analysis Analysis of hazards and hazardous materials impacts and Adopted 15/MND-identified mitigation measures ofthe Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 8, pages 15-42 through 15-46. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that Approved Project component impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from the release of hazardous materials into the environment through accident conditions, would be less than significant. The Adopted 15/MND (Section 8.d) identified approximately 50 recorded hazardous waste sites along all Phase Ill pipeline alignments, except for Segment 7. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that Segment 7 and the storage tank would not result in a significant impa£t related to listed hazardous material sites. However, Segment 5 was determined to have the potential to encounter contaminated soil, and impacts were potentially significant. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated through Adopted 15/MND mitigation measures Haz-1 (excavation monitoring) and Haz-2 (construction worker health and safety work plan). The Adopted 15/MND concluded that temporary roadway closures from development of the Approved Project components in the roadway ROW could potentially interfere with emergency plans and procedures. With implementation of the construction measures in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND, CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 15 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 27 of 223 including a traffic control plan, impacts from temporary roadway closures to emergency replace or evacuation plans would be less than significant. \ Analysis of the Proposed Modifications The proposed modifications would comply with applicable hazardous materials regulations, as described in Section 8a of the Adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in a potentially significant hazard from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As described in the Adopted IS/MND, Segment 7 and the storage tank are not located on a site listed in a hazardous materials site database, and no significant impacts would occur from disturbing such a site for these modifications. However, as Segment 5 was identified as having the potential to encounter contaminated soil during construction activities, the Segment 5 extensions and the potable water pipelines (which are adjacent to Segment 5) are determined to have potentially significant impacts. These potentially significant impacts would be mitigated through Adopted IS/MND mitigation measures Haz-1 (excavation monitoring) and Haz-2 (construction worker health and safety work plan). Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications, if constructed within the roadway ROW, could potentially interfere with emergency plans and procedures. With implementation of the construction measures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, including implementation of a traffic control plan, impacts from temporary roadway closures from the proposed modifications to emergency replace or evacuation plans would be less than significant. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in hazards or hazardous materials conditions within the area of the proposed modifications since the adoption ofthe IS/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding hazards or hazardous materials has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to hazards or hazardous materials have been identified. Conclusion None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding hazards and hazardous materials that was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the hazards and hazardous materials impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 16 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 28 of 223 Hydrology/Water Quality Previous Analysis Analysis of hydrology/water quality. impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 9, pages 15-47 through 15-51. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the storage tank would be a passive facility on an existing storage tank site and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters, nor result in significant water quality impacts during and after construction, as no ground-disturbing activities would be required and potential pollutants would be contained within the existing drainage system of the site. The Adopted 15/MND determined that construction of Segments 5 and 7 would have the potential to contribute to a violation of water quality standards, the degradation of water quality, or increased erosion or flooding. However, through conformance with the Storm Water General Permit/General Linear Utility Permit, in addition to requirements established by the Cities of Carlsbad (Carlsbad Storm Water Standards Manual) and Oceanside (Oceanside Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance), where applicable, these impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with these measures includes implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs. These measures are further described in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND. If dewatering is required for an Approved Project component, dewatering and discharge activities would be subject to water quality guidelines outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) administered by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential water quality impacts include a spill contingency plan and requirements for groundwater disposal if encountered. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications could result in short-term construction-related water quality, erosion, and flooding impacts that would be minimized through implementation of the features described in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND. In addition, if dewatering is required for the proposed modifications, the modifications wou Id comply with the N PDES guidelines. With implementation of these features, impacts from hydrology and water quality from the proposed modifications would be less than significant. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in hydrqlogy or water quality conditions within the area of the proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the 15/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding hydrology or water quality has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to hydrology or water quality have been identified. Conclusion None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, there are no CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 17 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 29 of 223 substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding hydrology and water quality which was not known and could not have been known when the 15/MND was certified. Therefore, the hydrology and water quality impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. Land Use/Planning Previous Analysis Analysis of land use and planning impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 10, pages 15-51 through 15-52. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the Approved Project, whose components are located as underground facilities or improvements on CMWD property containing existing facilities, would not physically divide an established community. The Approved Project determined that construction would result in potential incompatibilities with surrounding land uses only if it would require roadway closures; however, the proposed modifications will not result in any roadway closures. With the implementation of a traffic control plan (as described in construction measures Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND) this conflict would be less than significant. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in temporary increases in noise levels from the operation of construction equipment; however, noise levels would comply with applicable noise ordinances and the CMWD would implement BMPs to minimize noise. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the Approved Project was consistent with the city's General Plan, as the Approved Project would implement the recycled water infrastructure necessary to meet the land use goals established in the city's General Plan. The Adopted 15/MND stated that all projects located within the Coastal Zone will require review for consistency with the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and California Coastal Act prior to issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The storage tank would be located within the Coastal Zone; however, the Adopted 15/MND did not state this. As concluded by the Adopted 15/MND, the required review and issuance of CDPs would ensure that infrastructure projects would be consistent with the Local Coastal Program; individual components would require this review on a project-by-project basis. With this review, impacts to the Coastal Zone were concluded to be less than significant. Several components of the Approved Project were determined to result in potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the City of Carlsbad Planning Division were required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the project description to be consistent with the conditions ofthe City of Carlsbad HMP. In addition, the projects were required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described in the City of Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely affected by the project. Therefore, implementation of the Approved Project components was determined to not conflict with the adopted City of Carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 18 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 30 of 223 Analysis of the Proposed Modifications The proposed modifications would result in similar land use conflicts from roadway closures and construction noise as the Approved Project. With implementation of a traffic control plan, where applicable, and the construction BMPs described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, impacts from these conflicts would be less than significant. The proposed modifications would further implement the recycled water infrastructure necessary to meet the land use goals established in the city's General Plan, and therefore the modifications would be consistent with the city's General Plan. The Segment 5 and 7 extensions and the Flower Fields pipelines would not be located in the Coastal Zone. The storage tank and the Palisades potable water pipelines would be located within the Coastal Zone. As with other Approved Project components, the proposed modifications in the Coastal Zone would require review for consistency with the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and California Coastal Act prior to issuance of a CDP. With this review, impacts to the Coastal Zone would be less than significant. Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications were determined to result in potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the City of Carlsbad HMP. Proposed modifications requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the Carlsbad Planning Division would be required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the project description to be consistent with the conditions of the City of Carlsbad HMP. In addition, the proposed modifications would be required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described in the Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely affected by the project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed modifications would not conflict with the adopted City of Carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in land use and planning policies or requirements within the area of the proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding land use has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to land use have been identified. Conclusion None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to land use and planning. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding land use and planning which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the land use and planning impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 19 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 31 of 223 Mineral Resources Previous Analysis Analysis of mineral resources impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 11, pages IS-52 through IS-53. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the components would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on an applicable plan. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not be located in areas known to have mineral resources or areas delineated as a mineral resource site, and no impacts to mineral resources would occur. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to mineral resources. No substantial changes to these resources have occurred since adoption of the IS/MND, and no substantial new mineral resources have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed modifications. Conclusion Based on the above, no neV<.'. significant mineral resources impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to mineral resources from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163. Noise Previous Analysis An analysis of noise impacts for the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 12, pages IS-53 through IS-56. As described in the Adopted IS/MND, the CMWD committed to the measures list in Appendix A during construction of the Approved Project to minimize noise effects to surrounding neighborhoods, including distancing noise sources from residences, compliance with applicable noise ordinances, and providing notice of construction to residents and property owners. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that operation ofthe pipeline projects and storage tank would be passive and would not result in permanent increases in the ambient noise environment. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 20 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 32 of 223 No pile driving or blasting would occur with the Approved Project. Vibration impacts from project construction on Segment 5 were identified by the Adopted IS/MND as having the potential to impact nearby structures and vibration-sensitive equipment and operations at commercial and industrial land uses. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that residential development would not include vibration sensitive equipment that would be impacted by construction vibration. As listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, project construction would provide advanced notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignments. The announcement will state specifically where and when construction will occur in the area. With this adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration, impacts from construction vibration were concluded to be less than significant. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would implement the construction features described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND. With implementation of these features, impacts from construction noise would be less than significant. Once operational, the proposed modifications would be passive and would not result in permanent increases in the ambient noise environment. The Segment 5 extension, on Monroe Street, would be constructed near commercial land uses. Therefore, there would be a potential for construction vibration to affect the commercial development. As with the Approved Project, construction of the proposed modifications would provide advanced notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignments. The announcement will state specifically where and when construction will occur in the area. With this adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration, impacts from construction vibration were concluded to be less than significant. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in noise or vibration policies or requirements within the area of the proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding noise or vibration has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to noise or vibration have been identified. Conclusion None ofthe proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to noise and vibration. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding noise and vibration which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the noise and vibration impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 21 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 33 of 223 Population and Housing Previous Analysis Analysis of population and housing impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 13, page 15-56. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the components would have no impact on population growth or on displacing housing or people. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not directly or indirectly induce population growth because the projects have been developed to accommodate projected population growth and associated demand. Furthermore, the Approved Project would not displace housing or people, and therefore, no impacts would occur. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to population and housing. No substantial changes to population and housing have occurred since adoption of the 15/MND. Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant population and housing impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modificat ions. Therefore, the impacts to population and housing from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163 Public Services Previous Analysis Analysis of public services impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 14, page IS-57. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the components would have no impacts public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not result in impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public faci lities. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 22 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 34 of 223 relative to public services. No substantial changes to public services have occurred since adoption of the IS/MND. Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant public services impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to public services from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. Recreation Previous Analysis Analysis of recreation impacts ofthe Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 15, page IS-58. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the components would not result in increased use of recreational facilities or require the construction of new facilities, and no impacts would occur. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not increase use of recreational facilities require the construction of new facilities, and no impacts would occur. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Im port a nee There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to recreation impacts. No substantial changes to recreation impacts have occurred since adoption of the IS/MND. Conclusion Based on the above, no new recreation impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to recreation from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163. Transportation/Traffic Previous Analysis Analysis of traffic impacts are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 16, pages IS-58 through IS-60. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in temporary impacts to traffic circulation, emergency access, and pedestrian and bicycles facilities from construction-related traffic, due to potential disruption of traffic from lane closures, detours, and increased traffic. Through preparation of a traffic control plan, as described under Transportation/Traffic in Appendix A of the CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 23 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 35 of 223 Adopted IS/MND, these disruptions would be minimized or avoided and impacts would be less than significant. The Adopted IS/MND also concluded that long-term traffic impacts from maintenance and repair activities would be less than significant, due to the small number of trips that these activities would add to total daily traffic on the roadways. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications could result in short-term construction traffic impacts during construction, due to temporary impacts to traffic circulation, emergency access, and pedestrian and bicycles facilities. As with the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would implement preparation of a traffic control plan, as described under Transportation/Traffic in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND. With implementation ofthe plan, these disruptions would be minimized or avoided and impacts would be less than significant. After construction, vehicle trips associated with maintenance and repair of the facilities are considered similar to those previously analyzed under the Adopted IS/MND and would not be considered new traffic trips. Impacts from operational traffic would be less than significant. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in transportation and traffic conditions within the area of the proposed modifications since the time of adoption of the IS/M ND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding transportation and traffic has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to transportation and traffic have been identified. Conclusion None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to transportation and traffic. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding transportation and traffic which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the transportation and traffic impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. Utilities and Service Systems Previous Analysis Analysis of utilities and service systems impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 17, pages IS-61 through IS-62. The analysis of utilities and service systems in the Adopted IS/MND determined that Approved Project components would use water for fugitive dust control and trench compaction during construction. However, this use would be temporary and limited to relatively small amounts, and sufficient water CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 24 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 36 of 223 supplies would be available. Impacts from solid waste generation were concluded to be less than significant, as construction waste would be temporary and limited to small amounts and operation would not generate solid waste that would impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. The Approved Project was concluded to not result in impacts to wastewater treatment requirements or environmental effects from construction of new water or wastewater facilities. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications The proposed modifications would result in similar impacts to the Approved Project. Water for fugitive dust control and trench compaction during construction would occur; however, the work would be temporary and limited to relatively small amounts. Solid waste would be disposed of similar to the Approved Project. The proposed modifications would not require construction of previously unidentified water or wastewater facilities. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the Adopted IS/MND, and would not change the conclusion that less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems would occur. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project is Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There have been no substantial changes in utilities and service services, or to the requirements of agencies that provide such services within the area of the proposed modifications since the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding utilities and service systems has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to utilities and service systems have been identified. Conclusion None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts related to utilities and service services. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding utilities and service systems which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the utilities and service systems impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. Mandatory Findings of Significance Previous Analysis The mandatory findings of significance analysis are included in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 18, pages IS-63 through IS-67. The Adopted IS/MND concluded the Approved Project would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment through indirect runoff impacts to wetlands and sensitive natural communities, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into the sensitive natural communities. With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, the biological resource impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 25 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 37 of 223 The Adopted IS/MND also concluded that the Approved Project would result in a substantial adverse effect on humans related to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. These potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, Haz-1, and Haz-2. Analysis of the Proposed Modifications Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment through indirect runoff impacts to wetlands and sensitive natural communities, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into the sensitive natural communities. With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, the biological resource impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. In addition, the proposed modifications would result in a substantial adverse effect on humans related to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. These potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, Haz-1, and Haz-2. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to the mandatory findings of significance analysis. Conclusion Based on the above, no new significant mandatory findings of significance impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to mandatory findings of significance from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. 5. Conclusion Impacts associated with the proposed modifications would not result in a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts per the Adopted IS/MND, the focused biological resources study or Class I cultural resource inventory. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental IS/MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163. As such, this Addendum to the Adopted 15/MND satisfies CEQA requirements for the proposed modifications described herein. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 26 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 38 of 223 6. References ASM Affiliates Inc. (ASM). Addendum Report: Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for Amendments to Segments 5 and 7, Potable Water Pipelines, and the D Tank Site for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (ASM Project No. 20460). March 26, 2018. Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for the CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 2014. Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). Evaluation Form for Environmental Review and Federal Coordination for the State Water Resources Control Board SRF Program Application Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 2013. 2012a. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (EIA 12-02). SCH No. 2012091049. Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. November 2012. 2012b. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 12-01). Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. SCH No. 2012021006. October 2012. City of Carlsbad. Final General Plan & Climate Action Plan, September 2015, Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2011011004, dated June 2015. HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). Update to the Biological Resources Study and IS/MND findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. March 30, 2018. Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill .Recycled Water Project. May 2013. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Addendum 27 March 2018 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 39 of 223 Attachment A CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 40 of 223 Contents Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................................................................................... MND-1 Comments Received on the IS/MND and Responses ...................................................................................... RTC-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study .................................................................................... IS-1 Project Description/Environmental Setting .................... :. ................................................................................. IS-3 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... IS-3 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................. lS-17 Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................................................................. IS-17 Project Design and Construction Measures .............................................................................................. IS-17 Environmental Initial Study ............................................................................................................................. IS-20 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................................. IS-20 Determination ........................................................................................................................................... IS-20 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... IS-21 Earlier Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... IS-67 Supporting Information Sources ............................................................................................................... IS-68 Biological Resource Database and Literature Review ............................................................................... IS-70 List of Mitigating Measures ...................................................................................................................... IS-70 Applicant Concurrence with Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... lS-73 Figure 1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... IS-4 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Appendices Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Facility Locations .......................................................... lS-5 Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion .................................................................... lS-7 Expansion Segment lA ..................................................................................................... IS-9 Expansion Segment 2 ..................................................................................................... IS-10 Expansion Segment 4A ................................................................................................... IS-11 Expansion Segment 5 ..................................................................................................... IS-12 Expansion Segment 7 ..................................................................................................... IS-13 Expansion Segment 8 ..................................................................................................... IS-14 Expansion Segment 9 ..................................................................................................... IS-15 Expansion Segment 18 ................................................................................................... IS-16 Proposed Storage Tank Location .................................................................................... IS-18 Phase Ill Indirect Biology Map ........................................................................................ IS-31 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................... IS-19 Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction ............................................ IS-26 Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species ..................................... IS-30 City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards ................................................................... IS-54 A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features B Biological Resourc~s Letter Report I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Pagei ~optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 42 of 223 I ATKINS This page intentionally left blank. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page ii ~eplember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 43 of 223 Mitigated Negative Declaration Case Number: EIA 12-02 Project Title: Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Project Location The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in the County of San Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) service area (see Figure 1). A small portion of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) is located in the City of Vista and a small component (Expansion Segment 5) is located in the City of Oceanside. The project components will occur within public rights-of-way (ROW) and easements, with the exception of a portion of pipeline that would extend across the La Costa Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at the existing CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, 92011. The new or relocated storage tank would be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site near the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road. Expansion Segment 1A (ES 1A) is located in existing roadways south of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, and along Camino Via Roble. Expansion Segment 2 (ES 2) is located south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, along the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad track and Avenida Encinas. Expansion Segment 4A (ES 4A) is located in South Melrose Avenue in the City of Vista, just ~ast of the boundary of Carlsbad and Vista. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) north and south of State Route 78 (SR-78) along the Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansion Segment 7 (ES 7) is located south of SR-78, west of College Avenue, and north east of Carlsbad Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El Camino Real between Aviara and La Costa Avenue and within the South La Costa Golf Course. Expansion Segment 9 (ES 9) is located north of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, east of Highway 101, and south of Poinsettia Avenue. Expansion Segment 18 (ES 18) is located southwest of Maerkle Reservoir along Palmer Way and Impala Drive. Description of Project Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase Ill, would expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase Ill project would expand the treatment capacity (from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the Carlsbad Vl/ater Recycling FacilityCWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page MND-1 goplombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 44 of 223 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT IS/MND AND RESPONSES All comments received on the Draft IS/MND have been coded to facilitate identification and tracking. The City of Carlsbad received eight comment letters on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period that began on September 19, 2012 and closed on October 18, 2012. The comment letters on the Draft IS/ MND are listed in Table 1 below. Each of the comment letters were reviewed and divided into individual comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern. Where a letter comments on more than one issue, each individual comment issue is numbered (A-1, for example) and a specific response is included for each issue. Table 1. Comment Letters Received on Draft IS/MND Com mentor A Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit B Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission C Jacob Armstrong, Chief, Development Review Branch, Department of Transportation D Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control E Ahmad Kashkoli, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Resources Control Board F James W. Royle, Jr., Chairperson, Environmental Review Committee, San Diego County Archaeological Society G Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera H Paul J. Bushee, General Manager, Leucadia Wastewater District ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-i Date October 19, 2012 September 24, 2012 September 24, 2012 October 9, 2012 October 17, 2012 September 28, 2012 October 16, 2012 October 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 46 of 223 SCH/I Project Title l.eacl Agency Type Dr::scrjption 2012091049 COMMENTS Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water ProJect Carlsbad, City of MND t\•1itigated Negative Doclaralion The Phase Ill projec! would expand !he lreatmenl capacity (from 4.0 mgd lo 8 .. 0 mgd) within lho Carlsbad Water Recycling Fac11;1y by lnstalllng addllional fillralion units and chlorine contact basins. The Pha$e Ill project would atso im;tall 9-6.600 llnear feet o! pipelines, relocate· Of construct a nev, slorago lank1 convert existing potable water facmtie.s to recycled waler use, and mtrofit landscape 1mgauon waler systems lo use recycled i,.•Jater in eigh; expansions segment locations throughout tile projecl area. Lead Agency Contact Barbara Kennedy Carlsbad Municipal Water DislricL (760) 602-4626 Fax Name Age11cy Phone email Address City 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad State CA Zip 92008 Project Location County City Region Lat/Long Cross Slreets Parcel No. Township Proximity to: Sar Diego Carlsbad 33" S' 18" N / 117" 13" 37"W lnterslalo 5 Md Palomar Airport Road NIA Rango Highways Hwy 78 McClelJan,~Palornar1 Ocea.nslde AT&SF and Coaster Section Airports Raf/ways Watonvays Sc/100/s Lancf Use Buena Vis.la Creek, Agua Hedionda Cree~;. SE1n Marcos Carlsbad Unified District Project Issues Blclaglcal Resources; ToxiclHazardous Base Rovlowlng Resourees Agency: Cal!forn!a Coastal Commfssion; Dopar1rnent of Ffsh and Garne, Region S: Agencies Departrnenl of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency Management Agency, California; Resources. Recyoling and Recovery; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; Callrornla Highway Patrol; Caltrans, Dlslrlct 11; CA Department of Public Heam,; Stale Water Resources Control Board. Divison of Fin,;:incii:il Assistance: Reglonal Wator Quality Control Board, Region 9; D~partmenl ofToxlc Substances Contr'ol; Native American lieri!age Commission; PubHc Utilities Commission Date Received 09/19/2012 Start of R<Mow 09/19/2012 ATKINS Encl of Roviow 10/18/2012 CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 48 of 223 B-1. B-2. COMMENTS NATIVE AMER.ICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAP!TOL MAl.L~ ROOM 3M SACRAMENTO. CA !15814 (916)1~~· Fn.,t (U16) &57~5390 \V(tq Sita YL~Jl!lhc:.c.~19.R~ tb ... riahe®pacball,no1 Ms. Barbara K.ennedy, Planner September 24, 2012 Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~ \~ Re: SCH#2012091049; CEQA Notice qfCompletton: proppsed Mitigated Negative Declaration; for the "Phase Ill Recycled Water Pr9iect (El.A 12-02)" located In the City of Carlsba.c;t; San Dil:Jgo C~unty. CaJlfornia Dear Ms. Kennedy: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is "the State of California 'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of N.itive American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Tlifrd Appellate Court In the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3"' 604). This letter Includes stale and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties or resources of religfous and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native .American lndividuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religlous Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA -CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments-effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change ln the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a s!gnifoc1nt Impact on the environment as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic SignifiCc1n<;e." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will. have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effecl The NAHC recommends \hat the lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the proposed project. The NAHC ·sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native.American. He[itag!,l Commission and the California Legfslature in California Public Resources Code§§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items in the NAliC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidentfal and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ). Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area Is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project Is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the. religious and cultural B-1. B-2. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LETTER B. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION The first comment introduces the letter and states the role of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as a protector of California's Native American Cultural Resources. The comment describes the definition of 'significant effect' related to archaeological resources per CEQA guidelines; recommends an NAHC Sacred Lands File Search because the Area of Potential Effect for projects components are known to be very cultural sensitive; and states that Sacred Sites, as defined by the California Public Resources Code, and items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential. Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural resources records search performed by Atkins at the South Coastal Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Sewer, Water, and Recycled Water Master Plans EIR (Master Plans EIR), which included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase Ill project. A NAHC SLF search was conducted for the Master Plans EIR. The search identified known archaeological resources throughout the CMWD service area; however, the project components would be constructed in previously disturbed areas. This comment recommends consultation with an attached list of Native American contacts. Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural resources records search for the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and CMWD Water and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006) (2012 Master Plans EIR), which included the proposed project as part of the Recycled Water Master Plan. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the 2012 Master Plans EIR on page 4.4-6, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave Singleton of the NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, letters to each of the tribal contacts identified by NAHC in its February 15, 2012 letter, submitted during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. The letters sent to the tribal contacts described the proposed project that contained maps of the proposed CIP locations, and requested information about the SLF-listed resources, as well as information about any resources not listed in the SLF for inclusion in this report. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-4 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 50 of 223 B-2. cont. B-3, B-4. B-5, B-6, B-7. COMMENTS significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list or Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts, to see it your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtafn their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public .Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests. cooperation from other public agencies In order that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultatlon wlth Native American communities is also a matter of environmental' Justice as defined by California Government Code §65040, 12{e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Cod<' §5097 .95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be pr-0vlded consulting tribal parties, lnclr.iding archi;ieological s\udias_ The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage. or destroy Native American cultural resources and California Public·Resources Code Section 21083.2 (Archaeological Resources) that req·uires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources, construciion to avoid sites and the possible use of covenant easements to protect sites. Furthermore, the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statut.es and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321-43351). Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 u_s.c. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part BOD.3 (f) (2) &. .5, the President's Council on l':nvironmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.C 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U,S.C. '3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so thatthey could be applied to all historic resource types inoluded in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preseivation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful. supportive guides for Section 106 consullation. The afort1mentloned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects s1nd to "research" 1he cultural lands;cape that might include the 'area of potential effect.' Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code 36254( r) and may also pe protected l.lnder Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious, Freedom Act (cf. 42 U:S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision 9n whether or not to olsclose Items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097 .98, California Government Code. §27491 and 1-fealth & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provrsions for Inadvertent discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery of human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemete.-y''. To be effecli'le, consultation on specific projects must be the result ofan ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lea.d agenciesL project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding !ril:ial consultation, a relationship buitl around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes Will lead to more qualitative consultatJon tribal input on spectflc projects. Fin;illy, when Native American cultl.lral sites and/or Native American burial sites are prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends ·avoidance' of the site as referenced by CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a). B-3. B-4, B-5. B-6. B-7. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment recommends consultation with tribes and interested Native American parties, in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The proposed project does not involve a federal action or federal agency and is therefore not subject to the requirements of NEPA or Section 106 of the NHPA . Should the CMWD pursue federal funding in the future, such as through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the CMWD will undergo consultation with tribes and interested Native Americans in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. As discussed in response to comment B-2, letters to each of the tribal contacts identified by NAHC during the 2012 Master Plans EIR NOP comment period, which included the Phase Ill Project components, were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. This comment describes the requirements for confidentiality related to historic properties of religious and cultural significance. The IS/MND recognizes these requirements; therefore, no sensitive information related to any cultural resources was disclosed in the IS/MND. This comment describes regulations that outline procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of human remains. As discussed in Section 5 d) of IS checklist, the procedures detailed in PRC Section 5097.98 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be implemented in the event of unintentional disturbance of human remains. This comment is related to consultation with Native American representatives. Tribal contacts were consulted as part of preparation of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which included the Phase Ill Project components. Refer to response to comment B-2 for additional information. This comment describes the CEQA recommendation to avoid Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial sites. Avoidance has already been incorporated in the project by locating the Phase Ill Project components in previously disturbed areas, such as within existing roadways and the developed South La Costa Golf Course. ATKINIS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-5 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 51 of 223 Barona. Group of lhe Capitan Grande Edwln Romero, Chairperson 1095 Barona Roa,d Olegueno Lakeside , CA 92040 sue@barona-nsn.gov (619) 443-6612 619-443-0681 La Pasta Band of Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson COMMENTS Native American Contacts San Diego Counly September 24, 2012 Viejas Sand ol Kurneyaay Indians Anihony R. Pico, Chairperson PO Box 908 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine , CA 91903 Jrothauff@vlejas-nsn.gov (619) 445·3810 (619) 445-5337 Fax Jamul Indian Village Raymond Hunter, Chairperson PO Box 1120 Diegueno/Kurneyaay P.O. Bo:<. 612 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Boulevard , CA 91905 gparada@lapostacasino. (619) 478-2113 619-478-2125 San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson PO Box 365 Dleguano Valley Center, CA 92082 allenl@sanpasqualba.nd.com (760) 749-3200 (760) 749-3876 Fax Sycuan Band or the Kumeyaay Nation Daniel Tucker, Chairperson 5459 Sycuan Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay El Cajon , CA 92019 ssi1va@sycuan-ns11.gov 619 445-2613 619 445-1927 Fax Thi& ltst to e:ur,on.t only 35 nf 11'11, drtla Qf thls.docume.nt_ Jamul , CA 91935 !amutrez@sctdv.net (619) 669-4785 (619) 669-48178 • Fax. Mesa Grande BancJ of Mission lndla,ns Mark Romero. Chairperson P.O Sox 270 Dlegueno Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 mesagrandeband@msn.com (760} 782-3818 (760) 782-9092 Fax Pala Band of Mission Indians Historic Preservation Office/Shasta Gaughen :,sooa Pala T wr1ecula Roud, Luiseno F•aiii'" , CA 92059 Cupeno PMB50 (760) 891-3515 sgaughen@paialribe.com (760) 742-3189 Fax Oi,&tribuUtJn of th IN 11:i.t does not rollu,.ir,· ;any .POJS:On of u,y ,ta.lutorv re.4po.-.slbltlty ·as dOUnod In !klclJon 7060.5 of tlie Hoalth and S.ofoty Cbdo, Socuon 5097.94 QI Iha· Public RCGOltfCO!!I Codo .Dnd SecUvn 50\l7.~8 Qt Iha Pllbtlu ~OfWLltC4S Coda. thl:i l/5-t 1, 1ippli(;.llblc ft1n,ont:.it.tin11 foeal N.aU\IO A1uerJc.;)·rn;. 'flllh .regard lo cUltul'l)I fllBC>1.1reH for the. p,«ipo:wd :scu,:2012.Q9104!1; C'EQA NoUca of Compie-lloo; pCQp0r.cd Mltig11,ta<1 NngatlYo Oechn'lll"D.n hu \ho Ph;)Se Ill Rt.•1:.v(.l&.d W.tlcr ProJoct: loc:.·uod lo ttM, cu, "Of Carlsbad; San OJ.too County. CJJllfbmra. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND {EIA 12-02) Page RTC-7 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES Novem ber 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 53 of 223 COMMENTS Native American Contacts San Diego County September 24, 2012 Pauma & Yulma Reservation Randall Majel, Chairperson P.O. Box369 Luiseno Pauma Valley CA 92061 paumareservatlon@aol.com (760) 742-1289 (760) 742-3422 Fax Rinoon Band of Mission Indians Vincent Whipple, Triba.l HlstoricPreationv. Officer P.O. Box 68 Lulsano Valley Center, CA 9208.2 twolfe@rincontribe.org (760) 297-2635 (760) 297°2639 Fax Kwaaymli Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 Diegueno • Pine Valley , CA 91962 (619) 709-4207 Jnaja Band of Mission Indians Rebecca Osuna, Chairman 2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Dlegueno Escondido . CA 92025 (760) 737-7628 (760) 747-8568 Fax tt1I$ UM 15 c.a1rmnionly ~ of UH, d.itoor this dqcumonL Paurna Valley Band. of Luisefio Indians Bennae Calac. Trlbal Council Member P.O. Box 369 Lulseno Pauma Valley CA 92061 bennaecalac@aol.com (760) 617-2872 (760) 742-342.2 -FAX Rincon Band of Mission Indians Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson P,O. Box 68 Lulseno Valley Center, CA 92082 boma.uelti@aol.com (760) 749-1051 (760} 74.9-8901 Fax San Pasqual Band ol Indians Krislie Orosco, Environmenlal Coordinator P.O. Box 365 Luiseno Valley Center, CA 92082 Dlegueno (760) 749-3200 council@sanpasquallrlbe.org (760) 749-3876 Fax Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Will M[cklin, Executive Director 4054 WIiiows Road Dlegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine , CA ~1901 wrnicklln@leanlngrock.net (G·rs) 445-6315 • voice (619) 445-9126 • fax Oimr4bullon of'U1ls Ustao.M. not ,011ovo orw p,ors.on: otlM statutory ro,;ponsltlllrl')'ilS dsrmi,CI In Soct1or1 7060 . .6 Qf ltle Healtn aod Satoly coou, :Se-etton 6097.9'4 or lhc Publle RNOUl'"CCS. Codi, and St.>etltin 50!l7.9U of the PUbllc RIHl:OUtCM Code. Thlr;rl~t Is .ir,ipll<::ffblo for t:or1t11ctlng lcc:il Nt1U...i·Am!):,l~ns. wlth 111,gan, lo nt.1llu(ill rasourcu for the proposed nCHi\'2:0f209fQO; ce·aA Not/ct, of Comp1ollon; propoe.ud Mllig~ted NooaUvo Oocl.,nillon IDf" lhu. Philso1U f{.Q'(.yt~d Wotcr Projor.t; lo~1f;!(I In lhO Cl~ ot O.:irt1bnd; San Die!!JO County, ~ntamla. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-8 ' COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 54 of 223 COMMENTS Native American Contacts San Diego County September 24, 2012 San Luis Rey Band 01' Mission Indians Cultural Department 1 B89 Sunset Drive Vista CA 92081 760-724-8505 760-724-2172 -fax Luiseno Cupeno La Jolla Band or Mission Indians Lavonne Peck, Chairwoman 22000 Highway 76 Luiseno Pauma Valle14 CA 92061 rob.roy@lajolla-nsn.gov (760) 742-3796 (760) 7<12-1704 Fax lpai Nation of Santa Ysabel Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources P.O. Box 507 DiegUeno/Kumeyaay Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 cjllnton73@aol.com (760) 803-569'1 cjllnton73@aol.com Inter-Tribal Cultural Resource Protection Council Frank Brown, Coordinator 240 Brown Road Dlegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine , CA 91901 frankbrown6928@gmall.com (619) 884-6437 TI1's llt.l 15 current only ;;,:. of the do.toot th~ doc.umonL l(umeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee Bernice Paipa. Vice Spokesperson 1095 Barona Road Dlegueno/Kumeyaay Lakeside , CA 92040 (619) 478-2113 (KCRC ls a Colation of 12 Kumeyaay Governments Olstrllmtion ot u,1,. !1st doos ""' roli11YC ;uiy p~nnori al lhD .suwrory rD&pon~lbllll)' n dCfinod ro SecUon 1050.S of tJ10 8'1-Dtlll and S11rety Code. 511Ctfon 0097.~'4 of lhl' Pu.bHc R~11our«:t1.!i·Cadt! c111d S(!~l'Jon 5097.911 of tho PubtJc Resou~c Codo. lhls IUlt is' .IJ}plltuble ,(If ccmtaclJno Joe.JI Natlvo Amo,Jconn. with regard lo culhlriJI ru&ourcc.s for !hu 1>ropo!'.ied JJCH.#20120910•9; CEOA Notito of ComploUon: proposed MiUg,atud Negii'!li'i'U Oct:.larirUon lor U1e Ph1uJ.e 111 Rooyc[od Warm ProJoct: IJ)i;atod In lhc City of curtst>ad: Sdn Diogo Count~. eanroml;i. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-9 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 55 of 223 COMMENTS filtll»OFCAI IFORNtA-PUSJNT;SS IRANSPORJATIQC A.HP HOU~rNQ AQfN v PMtC>V O BROWN Jr Gorrnm: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, DIVISION OF PLANNING • 4050 TAYLOR ST, M.S. 240 SAN DlllOO, CA 92110 PHONE (619)688-6960 Fle.t_yo1Jrpawttrl Bt: ~t!rgy~ffict,mtl FAX (619) 688-4299 l"fY 711 www.dotca.gov C-1. September 24, 2012 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Kelllledy: 11-SD-5 PM 44.07-50.68 Carlsbad MWD Phase liI Recycled Water MND I SCH #2012091049 The California Department of Transportation (Cal trans) received the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Water Dislrict Phase Ill Recycled Water project (SCH #2012091049) for the City of Carlsbad. Caltrans has the following comments: Any utility crossings of freeways will need an encroachment pennit from Cal trans. Please refer to Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual {http://www.dotca.gov/hg/traffopsldevelopserv/pennits/encroachment permits manual/index.ht mD for guidance on utility encroachment. Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment permits. If you have any questions, please contact Leila Ibrahim, Development Review Branch, at (619) 688-6802. '7Z'ff1-z: ARMSTRONG, Chief Development Review Branch C-1. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LETIER C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) This comment states that any utility crossings of freeways will need an encroachment permit from Caltrans and provides sources of information regarding encroachment permits. Table 1 on page A-3 in Appendix A of the IS/MND, Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals, has been revised to include encroachment permits from Caltrans in the list of applicable permits for the proposed project. An encroachment permit would potentially be required for Phase Ill Project component ES 5 that proposes construction on either side of State Route 78. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 . Page RTC-1 0 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 56 of 223 D-1. cont. D-2. D-3. D-4. Ms. Barbara Kennedy October 9, 2012 Page 2 COMMENTS • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). • EnviroStor (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below). • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCUS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • Geo Tracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites {FUDS). 2) The MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site within the proposed Project area that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. 3) Any environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for a site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be clearly summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports by regulatory agencies should be included in the MND. D-2. D-3. D-4. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE Ill lS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment states that the IS/MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation or remediation within potentially contaminated areas. Section {d) of the JS checklist already identifies this mechanism through mitigation measures Haz-1 and Haz-2. Mitigation measure Haz-1 requires construction monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with San Diego County Department of Environmental Health {DEH) requirements. Mitigation measure Haz-2 requires a construction worker health and safety plan that would include a description of engineering controls and measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site workers, the public and the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the construction area. The engineering controls shall be provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. This comment states that any environmental investigations, sampling, and/or remediation should be conducted under a workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency. As described in response to comment D-2, mitigation measure Haz-2 requires a construction worker health and safety plan that would be submitted to the DEH for approval. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements, as required in mitigation measure Haz-1. This comment states that if demolition would be required, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of hazardous materials. The proposed project would not require demolition of any buildings. Existing roadway pavement may be removed to install pipeline; however these paved areas do not contain mercury or asbestos containing materials. Mitigation measure Haz-1 requires construction monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of hazardous materials. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon 4) If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a planned to be demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements. AT KINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-12 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 58 of 223 D-4. cont. D-5. D-6. D-7. D-8. D-9. COMMENTS Ms. Barbara Kennedy October 9, 2012 Page 3 presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. 5) Project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, ii must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 6) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the field activities. If necessary, a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency should be conducted by a qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 7) If the project area was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project. 8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 9) DTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VGA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, al (714) 484-5489. D-5. D-6. D-7. D-8. D-9 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment states that contaminated soil may be encountered and should be properly disposed. Consistent with the recommendations of this comment, mitigation measure Haz-1 requires construction monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of hazardous materials. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements. This comment states that a health risk assessment should be conducted to determine if there has been or will be any release of hazardous materials as a result of project construction. An appropriate assessment is already included in the IS/MND. Hazards and hazardous materials are evaluated in Section 8 of the IS checklist, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. A records search was conducted for the proposed project in February 2012, as described 'in Section 8 d} of the IS checklist. Construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potential to encounter contaminated soil during construction activities and expose construction workers to a significant hazard. Therefore, mitigation measures Haz-1 and Haz-2 are identified to reduce potential hazards to a less than significant level. This comment includes recommendations for sites that were previously used for agricultural activities. The project does not propose any components on lands previously used for agriculture. The Phase Ill Project components would be located within existing roadways, CMWD property, and a golf course. Therefore, this comment does not apply. This comment lists applicable regulations for facilities that would generate hazardous wastes. As discussed in Section 8 (a} of the IS checklist, the CWRF expansion would be the only Phase Ill Project component with the potential to generate hazardous waste. The CWRF currently uses chemicals and other hazardous materials in its treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additional use of these materials, including chlorine. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP} has already been prepared for the CWRF in accordance with DEH, Hazardous Materials Division requirements. The proposed new CWRF treatment facilities would be required to be incorporated into the existing CWRF HMBP. Disposal of CWRF equipment, such as filters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Therefore, the commenter's recommendations have already been incorporated into the IS/MND. This comment describes services that the DTSC can provide. It does not address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the 15/MND. No response is necessary. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-13 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 59 of 223 Ms. Barbara Kennedy October 9, 2012 Page4 COMMENTS If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, at rahmed@dtsc.ca.gov, or by phone at (714) 484-5491. Sincerely, 0-f'{ f}L-1 Rafiq Ahmed Project Manager Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov. CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control ., Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis P.O. Box806 ' Sacramento, California 95812 Attn: Nancy Ritter nritter@dtsc.ca.gov CEQA# 3654 ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-14 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 60 of 223 E-1. ~ ~ Water Boards COMMENTS State Water Resources Control Board OCT 1 7 2012 Barbara Kennedy Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1635 Faraday Avenue San Diego, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Kennedy: ~~1G.811.nr,i,,;J..._ ~~. M1t-Ol-lf""fll)W',<ll1f.l. r-,...__. ll-C.><i.f•~"411 ,~~t>,l .. ~ -U;'l;TIIJ!l DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) FOR CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (DISTRlcn: PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT (PROJECT); SAN DIEGO COUNTY; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012091049 We understand that the District is pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) financing for this Project (CWSRF No. C-06-7151-110). As a funding agency and a state agency with jurisdiction by law to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California's water resources, the State Water Resources Control Bo.ird (State Water Board) is providing the following information and comments on the IS/MND to be prepared for the Project. Please provide us with the following documents applicable to the proposed Project following the District's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process: (1) one copy of the draft and final IS/MND, (2) the resolution adopting the IS/MND and making CEQA findings, (3) all comments received during the review period and the District's response to those comments, (4) the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and (5) the Notice of Determination filed with the San Diego County Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse. In addition. we would appreciate notices of any hearings or meetings held regarding environmental review of any projects to be funded by the State Water Board. The State Water Board, Division of Financial Assistance, is responsible for administering the CWSRF Program. The primary purpose for the CWSRF Program is to implement the Clean Water Act and various state laws by providing financial assistance for wastewater treatment facilities necessary to prevent water pollution, recycle water, correct nonpoint source and storm drainage pollution problems, provide for estuary enhancement, and thereby protect and promote health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the state, The CWSRF Program provides low- interest funding equal to one-half of the most recent State General Obligation Bond Rates with a 20-year term. Applications are accepted and processed continuously. Please refer to the State Water Board's CWSRF website at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srf/index.shtml. The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review. Four enclosures are included that further explain the CWSRF Program environmental review process and the additional federal requirements. E-1. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LETIER E. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD This comment states that it is the understanding of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) that the CMWD is pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) financing and outlines the requirements to obtain funding. It is uncertain at this time whether or not the CMWD will pursue CWSRF funding for this project. However, if CMWD does choose to pursue this funding, ~hey will comply will all applicable SWRCB requirements. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-15 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 61 of 223 E-1. cont. COMMENTS The State Water Board is required to consult directly with agencies responsible for implementing federal en11lronmental laws and regulations. Any environmental issues raised by federal agencles or their representatives will need to be resolved prior to State Water Board approval of a CWSRF financing commitment for the proposed Project. For further information on the CWSRF Program, please contact Mr. Ahmad Kashkoli, at (916) 341-5855. !t is import.int to note that prior to a CWSRF financing commitmenl, projects are subject to provisions Of the Federal Endangered Sp1;1cies Act (ESAJ, and must obtain Section 7 clearance from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or the United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for any potential effects to special-status spedes. Please be advised that the State Waler Board will consult with USFWS, and/or NMFS regarding all federal special-status species that the Project has. the potential to impact if the Project is to be funded under the CWSRF Program. The District will need to identify whether the Project will involve any direct effects from construction activities, or Indirect .effects such as growth inducement, that may affect federally lisied threatened, endangered, or candidate species that are known, or have a potential 1o occur on-site. in the surrounding a(eas, or in the service area. and to identify applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects. In addition, CWSRF prqjects must comply with federal laws pertaining to cultural resources, · specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Aot. The State Water Board has responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 106, and must consult directly with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). SHPO consultation is initiated when · sufficient information is provided by the CWSRF applicant. If the District decides to pursue CWSRF financing, please retain a consultant that meets the Secretary of the Interior's ProfessionaJ Qualifications Standards {www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch stnds 9.htm) to prepare a Section 106 compliance report. Note Iha.I the District will need to identify the Area of Potential Effects (APE), including construction and staging areas, and the depth of any excavation. The APE is three-c:lirnensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the Project. The APE Includes-the surface. area and extends below ground to the depth of any Project excavations. The records search request should be made for an area larger than the APE. The appropriate area varies for different projects but should be drawn large enough lo provide information on what types of sites may exist in the viclnity. Please contact M~. Susan Stewart at (916) 341-6983 to find out more about the requirements, and to initiate the Section 106 process. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-16 - COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 62 of 223 E-1. cont. E-2. COMMENTS Other federal requirements pertinent to the Project under the CWSRF Program Include the following: A. Compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act: (a) Provide air quality studies that may have been done for the Project; and (b) if the Project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject to a maintenance plan; (i) provide a summary of the estimated emissions (in tons per year) that are expected from both the construction and operation of the Project for each federal criteria pollutant in a nonattainment or maintenance area, and indicate if the nonattainment designation is moderate, serious, or severe (if applicable); (ii) if emissions are above the federal de minim is levels, but the Project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved State Implementation Plan for air quality, quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections. B. Compliance with the Coastal .Zone Management Act: identify whether !he Project is within a coastal zone and the status of any coordination with the California Coastal Commission. C. Protection of Wetlands: Identify any portion of the proposed Project area that should be evaluated for wetlands or United States waters delineation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or requires a permit from the USACE, and identify the status of coordination with the USACE. D. Compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act: Identify whether the Project will result in the conversion of farmland. State the status of farmland (Prime, Unique, or Local and Statewide Importance) in the Project area and determine if this area is under a Williamson Act Contract. E. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: List any birds protected under this act that may be impacted by the Project and identify conservation measures to minimize impacts. F. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Act: Identify whether or not the Project is in a Flood Management Zone and include a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone maps for the area. G. Compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: ldenUfy whether or not any Wild and Scenic Rivers would be potentially impacted by the Project and include conservation measures to minimize such impacts. Following are specific comments on the District's IS/MND: 1. Mitigation Measure Bio-1A states that "Prior to removal or damage of any active nests or any tree pruning or removal operations during the prime nesting seasons, that being from March 15 to May 30, a qualified biologist shall survey the trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the area of tree removal or pruning.• However, Page 31, under Biological Resources, mentions that the raptor nesting season is from January 15-July 31, the general nesting season is from February 1-August 31, and Mitigation Measure Bio-10 slates that the general breeding season is from January 15- September 15. E-2. .,.. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment states that there are inconsistencies between the breeding seasons or nesting seasons reported in the IS/MND and that the breeding season should be consistent with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements. The discussion of breeding seasons in Section 4 a) of the Initial Study checklist has been revised to be consistent with the more conservative breeding season identified in mitigation measures Bio-lA and Bio-lD (January 15 to September 15). The breeding season definition is consistent with the breeding seasons identified in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, which was approved by CDFG and USFWS. The prime breeding season identified in mitigation measure Bio-lA is not inconsistent with the general breeding season, as indicated by the commenter. The prime nesting season corresponds to a peak time period within the general breeding season when the majority of bird species known to breed in the region are most likely to have established a breeding territory and have an association with an active bird nest. Mitigation measure Bio-lA proposed within Section 4 of the Initial Study checklist includes pre-construction requirements for a qualified biologist to confirm, in writing, that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur if project construction is planned to occur during any portion of the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15). Nevertheless, to achieve consistency and improve clarity of the measure, mitigation measure Bio-lA has been revised as stated below to remove reference to the prime nesting season and ensure that all pre-construction requirements correspond with the entire general breeding season time period. To further improve clarity of the measure, mitigation measure Bio-lA has also been revised to replace the term "vacated" with the statement, "no longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nest". Mitigation measure Bio-lA has also been revised to clarify the timeframe for pre-construction surveys. Last, mitigation measure Bio-lA requires the City to restrict construction activities to ensure that no nest is inadvertently abandoned by a bird. The City is not proposing a measure to pursue and require authorization or a permit from the CDFG or USFWS to purposely and actively cause a nest to be abandoned; therefore, a provision for CDFG and USFWS protocol for vacating nests is not necessary. Mitigation measure Bio-lB has been revised as follows to clarify the timeframe for pre-construction surveys. Bio-lA Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including rap tors, protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code, the CMWD shall enforce the following: Prior to construction activities requiring the removal. pruning. or damage of any actfoe ,Jests 01 trees. shrubs. and man-made structures (e.g .• buildings. bridges. etc.) a11y t, ee p, 1:mi119 01 1 emooal ope, anons during the prime general 1'te5tirtg breeding seasons, that being from Ma, ch 15 to May '38Januarv 15 to September 15, the Citv shall retain a qualified biologist to s.ia/1 st:11 ~e o the t, us perform a pre-construction survey to determine if there ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-17 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 63 of 223 COMMENTS Thank you for the opportunity to review the District's IS/MND. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (916) 341-5855, or by email at AKashkoli@waterboards.ca.gov, or contact Jessica Collado at (916) 341-7388, or by email at JCollado@waterboards.ca.gov. Sincerely, A~ t~i4-t?lr- Ahmad Kashkoli Senior Environmental Scientist cc: State Clearinghouse (Re: SCH# 2012091049) P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 E-5. E-6. E-7. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment requests clarification whether the Twin D site and CWRF expansion were included in the cultural resources record search. These project components were included in 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan, and the cultural resources record search conducted for the 2012 Master Plans EIR. This comment requests a copy of the cultural resources record search and associated archaeological sensitivity maps. The commenter is requesting this information for the purposes of consultation required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF financing. Should the CMWD pursue CWSRF funding in the future, the CMWD will comply will all applicable State Water Resources Control Board requirements. This comment requests copies of correspondence with the NAHC in order to confirm that Native American consultation has been completed. A description of Native American consultation is provided in response to comment B-2. As part of preparation of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave Singleton of the NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, letters to each of the tribal contacts identified by NAHC were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. The letters described the proposed project and contained maps of the proposed CIP locations, including the Phase Ill project components. Copies of the Native American correspondence are provided as Appendix D to the 2012 Master Plans EIR, available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. E-8. This comment requests demonstration of Section 106 compliance. Section 106 consultation is required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF financing. Should the CMWD pursue CWSRF funding in the future, the CMWD will comply will all applicable State Water Resources Control Board requirements. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) ~ Page RTC-19 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 65 of 223 COMMENTS 9 \11,co c0 + "+ .. ~ "' ... .c::; ; . ~ >-San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. ~ ~ ,. Envirorunental Review Committee ('I "' .s, ... -1. o" 28 September 2012 F-1. F-2. "'O 4JI toc,c,.." To: Subject: Ms. Barbara Ke!llledy Planning Division City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Phase III Recycled Water Project EIA 12-02 Dear Ms. Kelllledy: I have reviewed the subject DMND on behalf of this committee of the San Diego County Archaeological Society. Based on the infonnation contained in the DMND and initial study, we have the following comments: 1. Page IS-37 of the initial study states that. for areas which "would involve installation ofnew pipelines located entirely within existing roadways", that "Archaeological resources within the roadway ROW would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction." Any number of cases could be cited to disprove this unfounded assumption. The City of San Diego has required monitoring in many situations for just such work and has encountered numerous archaeological deposits which were, in fact, protected by the roadway rather than destroyed by it. Ms. Myra HemnaM at the City (mhernnaM@sandiego.gov) can verify that fact. 2. To address this possibility, a qualified archaeologist must review the entire route of these new pipelines and identify any areas where unknown subsurface deposits could exist. If, for example, development took place in an area prior to CEQA implementation requiring cultural resources studies, all but the portions of cultural deposits could have been destroyed without their being recorded. Archaeological and Native American monitoring should then be required for those portions of the routes of the new pipelines, with detailed requirements addressing the procedures to be followed if resources are encountered, up to and including analysis, report preparation and curation of cultural material not associated with human remains. P.O. Box 81106 San Diego, CA 92138-1106 (858) 538-0935 F-1. F-2. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LEITER F. SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. This comment states that the conclusion in Section 5 (b) of the IS checklist that archaeological resources within previously disturbed areas is unfounded because archaeological resources have been uncovered during similar construction activities in the City of San Diego. The IS/MND recognizes that, due to the high cultural resource sensitivity in the area, unknown cultural resources may still be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities. Appendix A of the IS/MND, Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features, includes a procedure for the accidental discovery of archeological resources that would reduce potential impacts to potentially significant unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level. If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during construction, or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources is encountered, all ground-disturbing activity will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. No further grading will occur in the area of the discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. This comment states that a qualified archaeologist should review the entire route of the proposed pipelines and identify any areas where unknown subsurface deposits could exist. Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural resources records search performed by a qualified archeologist at the South Coastal Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase Ill project components. The purpose of the record search and outreach to Native American contacts, described in response to comment 8-2, was to identify those projects with the highest potential for adversely affecting cultural resources. The analysis identified known archaeological resources throughout the CMWD service area; however, the project components included in the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project would be constructed entirely within previously disturbed areas. Therefore, this recommendation has already been incorporated into the IS/M ND. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-20 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 66 of 223 G-4. COMMENTS these systems will be connected and what additional system modifications and impacts associated with those modifications may occur in the two cities that will be affected by Carlsbad's plan. It is understood that the City of Carlsbad will not pursue expansion into these cities until agreements have been reached over such issues and cost sharing. The need to modify pipelines or other infrastructure within these two cities is a potential indirect impact that has not been identified or mitigated. This MND has not described what actions have been taken to comply with permit requirements related to wetland impacts. Specifically this requires that impacts are first G-5. I avoided, then minimized and then mitigated. Putting in language that says wetlands impacts are being avoided does not demonstrate exactly what has been done to assure that there has been full compliance witl1 this required process. Bio 1-b needs to be modified to include that biologist will also assess the open space areas for potential impacts on wildlife movement corridors and will take action to mitigate any potential temporary construction or pennanent impacts. This should include not just what is identified as connecting linkages in the HMP, but actual on-the ground movement corridors that have been modifie·d over time because of construction and otl1er barriers that have changed historic movement patterns since tile MHCP corridors were mapped 15 years ago. See Wildlife Corridor study submitted to the city as G-6. I part of the analysis done for the new Carlsbad High School by Dudek in April 2010. The program level EIR has not included appropriate reference to the adopted Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and such subsequent watershed management plans that may be adopted prior to these Phase III projects moving forward. Reference to the AHWMP as a guidelines document was included in the city's adopted Drainage Master Plan and should also be incorporated in this project level and the program level EIR as a guidelines document Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working witll you to address these concerns. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard Cc: Bryand Duke CDFG, On Behalf of Preserve Calavera ~ Janet Stuckrath USFWS G-4. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment states that the MND has not described what actions would be taken to comply with wetland permit requirements. As discussed in Section 4c) of the Initial Study checklist, none of the proposed project components would result in direct discharge, dredge, or fill activities within jurisdictional resources, including wetlands. Due to the location of the proposed project components within upland areas, none are expected to result in inadvertent discharge, dredge, or fill activities within jurisdictional resources. Portions of ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, and ES 8 are located within upland areas that occur in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas potentially supporting wetlands. Potentially significant indirect impacts were identified. Potential indirect impacts to federally protected wetlands and other jurisdictional resources would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations discussed in Section 9 and Appendix A of the IS checklist; incorporation of project design and construction features identified for Biological Resources and Hydrology and Water Quality in Appendix A of the IS Checklist; and, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF. The proposed project components would not result in direct impacts to wetlands; therefore, wetland permits would not be required and avoidance has already been incorporated into the siting and design of the proposed project. Mitigation measure Bio-18 requires pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist to verify existing biological resources adjacent to project construction areas, including the presence or absence of potential jurisdictional resources and wetlands. If potential jurisdictional resources or other sensitive biological resources are determined to exist or have the potential to exist adjacent to project construction areas, the City will further implement Mitigation measure Bio-lC, which requires fencing to be installed to clearly delineate the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. In addition, the City will restrict all construction staging areas through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lE and, through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lF, will retain a qualified biologist to perform contractor awareness training to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/ or minimization requirements. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately demonstrates how impacts to sensitive areas would be avoided, as recommended by the commenter. G-5. This comment states that the IS/MND should include mitigation to require an assessment of open space areas for potential impacts to wildlife corridors during construction. As discussed in Section 4d) of the IS checklist, all of the Phase Ill project component sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The sites do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of any known or potential local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. The proposed project components will be constructed within areas that already represent permanent development barriers to wildlife movement. As it concerns the project components ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14. 2012 Page RTC-23 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 69 of 223 COMMENTS AT KIN S COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES identified as having potential indirect impacts on biological resources (i.e., ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9), installation and operation activities associated with recycled water pipelines within existing disturbed and developed areas would not be expected to adversely affect wildlife movement and would not necessitate the additional measures suggested by the commenter. Therefore, the recommended modifications to mitigation measure Bio-18 do not apply to the proposed project. G-6. This comment states that the 2012 Master Plans EIR does not include appropriate reference to the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and other plans that may be adopted prior the Phase Ill projects moving forward. The comment also states that the AHWMP was incorporated into the City's drainage master plan and should be incorporated in the IS/MND. The comment as it relates to the 2012 Master Plan EIR does not apply to the proposed project. The Agua Hedionda WMP1 implementation actions are to be implemented by local jurisdictions and agencies, such as incorporating low impact development techniques into local codes. The Agua Hedionda WMP does not include requirements to be implemented by individual developments, such as the Phase Ill project components. Therefore, the WMP is not considered an applicable local regulations and is not listed in the list of applicable hydrology and water quality regulations in Section 9a) of the IS checklist. It would be speculative to include watershed management plans that may or may not be adopted in the future; therefore, potential watershed management plans are not addressed in the IS/MND. 1 Tetra Tech. 2008. Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan. Produced for the City of Vista. August. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-24 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 70 of 223 H-3. H-4. H-5. COMMENTS Project Desc1·Jpt1011 The Project description for the ES8 segment does not accurately describe the Ullimate pmpose of tl1e l::S8 Project element, wllich is lo replace and cause the· aba.ndon111ent of the Gafner Plant. Instead, the MND erron0m1sly Identifies lhe Gafner Plant as an lnaclive facility (SBe, e,g., FlgLire 9.). For lhe record, the Gainer Plant t1as been the only supply of recycled water lo t11e south La Costa golf course since the early i960's. Due ta increased regulatory requirements there were intetmlllent periods of time where recycled water was not delivered to south course. The Gsfner Plant was upgraderJ in ·J 993 to meet new regulatory standards for recycled water, inclucting a one 1111111011 gallon per day filtration planl that provides a third stage of treal111ent over and above Gafner's original primary and secondary facilities. LWD has Sl/pplied recycled water to south La Costa golf course either by way of-a direct contract between LWD and La Costa or via an agreement with the Ci\y of Carlstlacl since the early 1960's. Its operations are. ongoing and LWD has no plans lo abandon the facility. The MND Relied Upon Erroneous Slatoments And Assumptions Contained in l'he Recycled Water Master Plan Tl1e MND's erroneous conclusions regarding the status of the Gafner Plan! appear to be based upon Inaccurate statemenls and conclusions fotlnct In Jls Recyc!ecl Water Master Plan ("Master Plan") and Its l:IR that were recently circulatec! for public review and com111ent, including tile following statements founcl in the Mester Plan al Section 2.7 .5, pp. 2-20-2·1: 'I, "CMWD staff lwve stated that the aging naturo of the, Gafner WRP has led to a nu111bor of operational Issues'' As the General Manager for owner and operator of the Gaf11er Plant, I can assL1re yoq that this ' state111ent is lncorrect. The Gafner Plant has, With few inlem1ptlcms, continuously supplied recycled water to under Its contract Wilh Carlsbad, since operations of the upgraded facilities began In 1993. There are no operational issues jeopardizing the viability of the Plant, and most impottantly, no plan by LWO to terminate Its. operation. 2. "Gafner WRP has frequent stmt ups and sht!I downs that most liltely exacerbate the opero1tlonal Issues that CMWO curronlly pays t o resolve." Again, lhis erroneously assumes thal there are 011eratio11al issues. Operations al l11e Gainer Plant do slflrt up and shul down frequenlly due lo the soulh course's varyl11g demands for recycled water. However, this Is a condilion that has existed ror decades ancJ It l1as !101 interfered with the viability of the Gafner Plant. More l111po1tant, the price CMWD pays for recycled water has never varied based L1po11 start lip$ or sl,ul downs of the Gafner Plant. 3. "[TJho Gafner WRP Is not optimally utilized since !Im south golf course demand is fa1· less th1111 tl1e 111lni111um amount of recycled wator that CMWO is required to purchase from LWWO. To further compound Iha problem, the La Costa Resort & Sp& further roduces recyr.led water damancl to Its south golf course by blending Gafner RWP effluent with potablo water lo decrease TOS conccmtrntlons for irrigation of nolt cQurao toes and putting greens." This assu,nplion is flawed because, until recenlly, LWO was u11cter the lrnptession th&l ft was supplying the full south course cJemand for recycled water, which is less lhan the take or pay contract amount with Carlsbad. However, the second sentence of thit statement reflects the fact thal Carlsb~cl has chosen to allgw La Costa to supplement its demand with potable water despite the fact lhal the City's Recycled Water Ordinance No. 43 requires recycled waler to be used. It Is possible that the full talle or pay amount could have Ileen ullil~ecl under the contract if the City had followed Its own ordinance, which would have savecl-a significant a111ount of expenditures for Llnused recycled waler. H-3. H-4. H-5. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment states that the description of ES 8 does not accurately describe the purpose of the ES 8 element and incorrectly identifies the Gafner Plant as an inactive facility. Figure 9 has been revised to identify the Gafner WRF as active. Refer to response to comment 7 of the Utilities Department response letter. The project does not propose the abandonment of the Gafner Plant. The new pipeline ES8 has been sized for additional recycled water deliveries to numerous locations along its alignment, and to OMWO. However, the activit y or inactivity of the Gafner Plant, and the CMWO use of the facility, do not affect the analysi s of the ES 8 project component. No revisions to the IS/MNO are required in response to this comment. The section of the letter states that the conclusions found in the Program EIR and IS/ MNO are based on incorrect information regarding the status of the Gafner Plant and include comments on issues regarding the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master Plan. Please refer to the Utilities Department response to comments 8 through 13. This section of the letter comments on the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master Plan. It does not address the analysis of the environmental impacts of the plans contained in the IS/MND. Please refer to responses to comments 1 through 13 in the attached Utilities Department response to comments on the Master Plan. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-26 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 72 of 223 H-5. cont. H-6. H-7. H-8. COMMENTS In addition, the. quality of 'the recycled waler supplied from Gainer has conslstenlly met require111ents of the corit,acl with Carlsbad since t11e advanced treatment facility began operating in "1993. FurthernlClre, there Is no evidence in the record lo Indicate thal recycled water produced by the City's recycled water system would be any different with regard to Its TDS concentrations, and as s,1ch lhe circumstance in which potable water is used WOLtld not be changed by the Project. Therefore, LWD reiterates \hat the City's assumptions ,ire lncon·ect <1nd it was al the fUII discretion of the City to not maximir.e U1e take or pay component of the agreement 4. "[l]he La Costa Resort & Spa In 2010 indicated that tJ1ey are planning 011 significant changes, which include red11cing the amount of Irrigated turf,. and piping potable water to the {Jl'Oens and tel!S. These chang.es will further reduce their irrigation den1a11d on U1e recycled wate,· su1iply." Presuming these facts are true, they indicate a reduced demand for recycled water, further questioning t11e logic of expending adcllt.ional capital funds lo provlcje redundant facllilles lo provlcJe recycled waier lo a cL1stc,mer wilt, reduced demand. The Master Plan also Includes several other erroneous assumptions regarding the Gafner Plant used as justification far Its conclusion that abandoning the Gafner Plant Is warranteJ. For example, tho Master Plan assumed thal maximizing the Gafner Plant WoLilcl require replac0ment of 27,000 feel or secondary anluent return pipeline fmn1 the Ehcina Wastewater Authority ("EWA'') Plant Tl1fs pipeline has significant remaining Lmeful llfe and, t11erefore, replacement is hot needed.. The Master Plan Includes a cost to expand the Gafner Plant with membrane filtration and reverse osmosis which are not necessary to 111eet current waste water discharge requirements for ll1e Gafner Plant. As a ·resL1lt of the false assumptions aliove ancl others included in the Master Plan, tt provides an inflated cost of several n,lllion dollars lo maximize use of the Gainer Plant. (Sea Sec:llon 4.4.3) Most importantly, !he Master Plan did not consider tl1e alternative of continuing use of the existit 1(1 Gafner Plaill facilities under a renegotiated agreement to conllnue. a service that has been in place for more than 50 years, an alternative that would not require any major capital lnvesl111e11L For example, LWD staff has been meeting with Carlsbad staff since 2007 will\ goal of extending the recycled waler agreement For services to (he La Costa south course. Although the nego(ialions between LIND and Carlsbad never reached fruition, any conclusions in the MND tl1at rely upon the price of recycled waler as a· basis for pursuin9 abandonment oi the Gafner Plant are not supportable because Ille upfion of niodlfYing the price has never been pu1sL1ed by CMWD, The erroneous assumptions and errors in the Master Plan were can'ied forward into ils program EIR and ultimately lnto the Project MND that Includes ES8, Tl1ese assumptions prev~ntecl accurate conslderalion or environmental impacts because they resullecl in an erroneous Project description, envlronment<1I selling and baseline. Bioloqlcal anrJ Wetland hnpacfs r11e MND fails to disclose and discuss slgriiflcant potenllal impacts to biological resources, parllcular1y those associated with wc,uand habitats clue to, among other t111ng5, the following: 1. Tlie Notice Of Completion Farm fails to lctenUfy two waterways within two miles ol the propo~ecl Project, including Baliqultos Lagoon, and Encinitas Creek. Segmeni ES8 is Within two miles of H-6. H-7. H-8. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE Ill tS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES The comment states that the erroneous assumptions in the Master Plan were carried forward to the 2012 Master Plans EtR and IS/MND. As noted in the responses provided by the City (found in Attachment A to the RTC), the analysis conducted as part of the 2012 Master Plans EtR is based on accurate assumptions and therefore no revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. This comment introduces the comments that are addressed in responses to comments H-14 through H-17. Refer to the responses to these comments. This comment states that Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek are missing from the Notice of Completion for the project and Figure 9 of the IS/MND. Due to the large number of waterways in the project area, and limited space on the NOC form, only a selection of waterways within two miles of the project components were listed on the NOC. This form is intended to generally describe the project area; it does not need to provide a comprehensive list of features. Waterways that are not listed on the NOC are not precluded from analysis. All waterways that are potentially affected by the project are fully analyzed in the tS/MND. However, in response to this comment, Figure 9 has been updated to identify Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek. ATK INS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-27 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 73 of 223 H-8. cont. H-9. H-10. H-11. H-12. COMMENTS these waterways. In adclll[on, Figure !:l doe~ r,ot Identify San Marcos Creek, whicl1 crosses El 'Camino Real. ancl Encinitas Creel(, which crosses La Costa Avenue. Attached please find a Google ea1ih image wl1ich shows these creeks, which di-ain into Bal[quitos Lagoon. B0tl1 El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue currently have b11dges \hat cross these creeks. 2. The MND a11alysis of f!ood plain isstlf.!$ IS inadequate. Page IS-5·1 iclentlries tile Mear\\le Dam as being in close proximity to ES8, when in reality, this clarri Is far from the project site and poses JitUe threat. We have attached a second Google image t11at identifies the location of the Mearkle Dam in relation lo the ESB expansion site for reference. At t11e s~ma tln,e, lhe MND fails to identify flomlplalnslfloodil1g lsSllP.S related to the SoL1th co(1rse of H1e l-a Costa golf course, Which Is In lhe 100 year floodplain. The MND fails to disclose how lhe new ESB pipeline to the soutl1 golf course wo.uld lh1pact the 100 ye;ir lloadp!aln and San M;ircos Creek. Page IS-50 Indicates th,~I there Is 110 potential to Impact fioodlng because the plr,~lines wotilcl be underground, bl1t fails lo menlion that lhe pipes would ba altached to Iha bridges on ET Camino Real ancl La Costa Canyon In some fashion, and no analysis has been conducted regarding 1110 potential for these bridge 1110dificalions to impact flooding. Furll1ern1ore, !here is nri Information provided to describe how l':S8 construction would oocur within the floodplain of San Marcos Creek, where the pipeline leaves El CaiTiina.Real. 3. The MND erroneously states that the Project Will occur within ''j;ublic rlgl1ts of way and easements." However, the ES8 includes a segment a!pipeline on the La Costa Resort, where the City does not currently have an easement, ancl as Indicated al;ove, tJ1ls area is wlt11ln l11e floodplain of San Marcos Creel<. As a result, l11e MND ass1m1pt[o11 thal there will be no impacts bec,;use aJI Project activity will be within existing /lghts of way ~nd easements Is not sllpporiecl by evidence. 4. ThB MND fails to Identify potential Impacts to wetlanclE and riparl,m 1·,abitats that coul(I result from the instailatiun or the ES8 pipeline extension. The MND indicates that trencl1less rnethods will be usetl lo install the San .Marcos Creel\ crossing 111 lhe south La Costa golf cowse for ES8. (Con,tructlon Schedule and Methods, p. IS-16.) However, tliere is no dlsc,1ssion of tl1e specific rnelhod that would be used to cross the San Marcos Creek along El Camino Rc,al, and Encinitas Creek-.along La Costa Avenue. As llldicated above, there are bridges crossing these creel\s and each of these areas Large areas of salt marsh oci;upy the margins of ElaUquilos· Lagoon ancl significant strands of fresh water marsh are present where lhe San Marcos anti Encinitas Creeks enter the Lagoon, undP.r \lie bridges on El Cami110 Real and Encinitas-Creel1 ,ind lhe potential for ,, Project 1o create direct significapt impacts dl.lling construction l1as not llee11 adeqLtalely assessed. No initlga\ion for these polenlral impacts has been provided. Furthermore, the MND Indicates lhat tlie "Jack and bore"' \rencl1less method woulcl be used for the crossing of the San Marcos Creiik in the South La Costa Golf Course. This i5 thri not .lhe rnost cost effective or appropriate method for c1·osaing a creel1 with a pressurl:) pipeline. Generally, Horizontal Dlrectiono1I Di'llling 111etl1ods are used. Without ·additional ,nfornrntion, there Is no evlclf1nce in Ille recDrd to st1pport a finding that no potentially significant environmental impacts to biological resources and Wetlancls would occllf. Arnl1eoloqy Impacts Tile MNO fails to Identify the potential for tlw proposed trenchless construcllon to impact arcl1eological resources within the San Marcos Creek floodplain Page IS-37 indicates that there Is no potenUat ior impacts to archeologb1I resources, because· all construction would ocour within public rlgl1ls of way. However, a porliCJn of ESB includi;,s co11structlun within the San Marcos Creek floodplain, and the "jacl< H-9. H-10. H-11. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment states that Maerkle Dam poses little threat to ES 8. This is consistent with the IS/MND conclusion in Section 9j) that impacts related to inundation from Maerkle Dam would be less than significant. This comment also states that the IS fails to disclose how the ES8 pipeline would be'constructed within the floodplain of San Marcos Creek, or impacts to the San Marcos Creek floodplain. The IS/MND states on page IS-17 under Construction Schedule and Methods that trenchless construction would be utilized to cross San Marcos Creek. The IS/MND correctly concludes in Section 9h) that the underground pipelines would not impede or redirect flows within a 100-year flood hazard area. Two portions of ES 8 pipeline would be Installed on the sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. The Construction Schedule and Methods discussion on page IS-17 has been revised to clarify the description of the creek crossings. The proposed pipes would be attached to the side of the bridges and would not result in any new interference with potential· flood waters. Section 9h) of the IS/MND has been revised to clarify that the bridge crossing would not impede or redirect flood flows. The revisions to the analysis made in response to this comment do not Identify a new significant effect or mitigation and do not constitute a substantial revision. This comment states that the IS/MND does not disclose that a portion of ES 8 would occur within the La Costa Resort, which is outside of the public right of way. The description of ES 8 on page IS-8 under Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion states that ES 8 would include an extension of pipelines across the South La Costa Golf Course, which may be placed outside of the public right-of-way. The description of the Project Location on page IS-1 referenced in this comment has been corrected to state that a portion of the ES 8 would be located within the South La Costa Golf Course. The statement on page IS-1 is not an impact statement and this revision does not affect the environmental analysis of ES 8. This comment states that the MND fails to identify potential impacts to wetland and riparian habitats because there is no discussion of the specific method that would be used to install the San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek crossing of ES 8. The comment also states that no mitigation has been indentified for potential impacts. As stated in the comment, the IS/MND describes construction of the San Marcos Creek crossing on page IS-17. A trenchless construction method would be used, and the jack-and-bore method is given as an example. The description on page IS-17 has been updated to provide directional drilling as another potential method that may be used. Either method would avoid direct impacts to habitat within San Marcos Creek. Installation of pipeline on the existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real would also avoid potential direct impacts. Encinitas Creek currently flows through a culvert under La Costa Avenue. Pipeline under La Costa Avenue would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil beneath the road surface and above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert would not be directly affected by construction. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 Page RTC-28 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 74 of 223 COMMENTS ATKINS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES In response to this comment, page 15-17 of the 15/MND has been updated as follows to specifically describe construction in the Encinitas Creek area: Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase Ill project would utilize typical construction equipment including dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation project components would utilize open trenching or trenchless (directional drilling or jack-and-bore) methods. Open trench pipeline construction would require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the diameter of the pipe and its depth. Trenchless recycled water pipeline project components include crossing Palomar Airport Road along Avenida Encinas (ES 2}, crossing the BNSF railroad tracks (ES 2), and crossing San Marcos Creek in the South La Costa golf course (ES 8}. Encinitas Creek currently flows through a culvert under Lo Costa Avenue. Pipeline under La Costa Avenue (ES 8/ would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil beneath the road surface and above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert would not be directly affected by construction. Two portions ofES 8 pipeline would be installed on the sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. Attaching the pipelines to the bridges would not require ground-disturbing construction activity. The installation of pipelines within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require a temporary Jane or roadway closure during construction activities. No grading would be required for the proposed CWRF expansion because it would occur on the existing building pads. As discussed in Section 4c) ofthe IS checklist, the 15/MND concurs with the comment that ES 8 is located within the immediate vicinity of wetland and riparian habitat. Therefore, the 15/MND determined that potential indirect impacts to wetland and riparian habitat would occur. As identified on pages 15-34 and 15-35, mitigation measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, no revisions to the 15/MND are required in response to this comment. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-29 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 75 of 223 H-12. cont. H-13. H-14. H-15. COMMENTS and bore" construction under Sa.n Marcos Creek has tl1e potential to impact archeological resources. Tl1e MND falls to identify ancl mitigate for archeological impacts. Public Ullllly Impacts The MND fails lo acki1owledge the Impact of causing lhe abandonment of \110 Gafner Plant, a public facility that is C\Jlrently operational. The Gafner Plant is repeatedly doscribecl as an inactive facility creating the erro11eous belief that the prbposed abandonment Is an existing condition. (See Figures 2 and 9, pages 18-5 and IS-14, respectively) Tl1e reality is lt1at the proposed Preject. would result in significant envlronme11tal effects to provide a utlltty service that is already being provideit by an existing facility. The MND has fallecl to analyze the potential i111pact that woLlld result fro111 the toss of recycled water capacity If the Garner Plcmt is forced to be abandoned. D0111olttlo11 Impacts The MND completely falls to address lho potential impacts that would be associate<! wlt11 den1otiU011 and replacement of the Gainer Plarit if ESB fames the shulc)own of the facility. Demolition of li1e Gafner Plant could bet a potential outcome of t1·1t:i rirojecl t11at would have the potential to cause significant air quallty, Lralfic ancl ol11er environmental impacts. such as 1·,azard waste associated with remov~11 or the materials. The MND completely falls to aclclress the consequences of Its unilateral attempt lo cause the atJandonrnent and demolition of the Gafner Plant. Conclusion LWD appreciates the CMWD's desire to expand Its recycled Wqter capacity for the region. However, LWD lakes issue with lh.e CMWD's assumption that Iha Gainer Plant is 110 longer viable and assumption that it makes sense from all e11viro111nenlal or public policy point of view to replace one public facility with another. Surely, in loday's environment where public resources are scarce, there is no justification for .:i public agency lo expencl pubHc funds to duplicate what is already in existence. For these reasons. LWD respectfully submits t11at the best course of ac\1011 will be for the CMWD lo abandon the ES8 segment of lhe Project. Olherwise, if the GMWD w1shes to pitrsue ES8, it mus1 first prepare an environmental impact report that (I) fully discloses potential ilnpac!s associated wilh construc1ion of new, reclL,ndan\ facilities and the destrL1ction of existing public facility. (ii) lctentllies alternatives that could avoid significant impacts a11d (Iii) iuenlifies mitigaij·on measures that could reduce impacts to a level below significance. ~st'tjgar~s, .. /) 11 . ~( . {) .)_(,,,., . ( -( )p aul J. El~~t1ee General Manager cc: File H-12. H-13. H-14. H-15. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES This comment states that the IS/MND fails to disclose the potential for trenchless construction to impact archaeological resources within the San Marcos Creek floodplain. Section Sb) of the IS checklist has been revised to clarify that construction would take place within existing roadways or the developed South La Costa Golf Course. Similar to the existing roadways, resources within the previously disturbed golf course would have been removed or destroyed by the previous construction. This includes impacts from trenchless construction in San Marcos Creek because this segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The entire South La Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf course, including the existing creek alignment. The revisions to the analysis made in response to this comment do not identify a new significant effect or mitigation and do not constitute a substantial revision. This comment states that the IS/MND does not address the potential abandonment of the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant and does not consider operation of the plant as an existing condition. The Phase Ill project does not propose to abandon the Gafner WRF. None of the Phase Ill project components would necessitate demolition or any other physical change to the plant. It is unclear what environmental effects would be caused by implementation of the project that are not disclosed of in the IS/MND, as stated by the commenter. This IS/MND addresses the potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result providing the utilities proposed in the Phase Ill project. Figures 2 and 9 have been corrected; however, the operation or inactivity of the Gafner plant does not affect the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. This comment states that the IS/MND fails to discuss the potential impacts of demolition and replacement of the Gafner WRF. The Phase Ill project does not propose the demolition or replacement of the Gafner WRF. None of the Phase Ill project components would necessitate demolition or any other physical change to the plant. Therefore, no change to the IS/MND is required in response to this comment. This comment concludes the letter and summarizes the comments that are specifically addressed in responses to comment H-1 through H-14. Refer to the response to these comments. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-30 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 76 of 223 ATTACHMENT A City of Carlsbad Utilities Department Letter dated November 8, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 79 of 223 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES 4 ,. ,~ :s. C I T ;,, fi f . ~· CARLSBAD UtiHUes Departn1ent November 8, 2012 Paul Bushee, General Manager Leucadia Wastewater District 1960 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, (EIA 12-02) Dear Mr. Bushee: www.ca rl sbadca.gov The Utilities Department is responding to your comment letter dated October 19, 2012 regarding the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, EIA 12-02. The City's Planning Department is responding with a separate letter to your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Measures. Your comments are restated below followed by our response. Comment 1, Page No. 1, First Paragraph: "Unlike other elements of the Project that would expand recycled water into areas not currently served, ES8 is designed to replace an existing public service." Response: Pipeline Segment ES8 will expand recycled water into areas that are currently not being provided recycled water service from CMWD's recycled water distribution system. The pipeline ES8 will be designed to extend the CMWD distribution system to the following irrigation use site locations: • La Costa South Golf Course • La Costa Hotel and Resort, which currently has a large grass landscaped entry, and other landscaped areas surrounding the buildings and grounds that would be converted from potable water to recycled water. • Numerous irrigation meters located along El Camino Real, including street median and parkway areas. • Various homeowner associations which have maintenance responsibilities for community based 1. landscaping. Some sites have already been approved for recycled water use by the County and CMWD, and therefore, the irrigation demand will be converted from potable water to recycled water immediately once the pipeline is constructed. • Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), which has submitted a letter indicating their interest in the potential purchase of recycled water from CMWD for the purpose of supplying OMWD's irrigation customers. OMWD staff has met with the City staff to review the Pipeline ES8 alignment and construction schedule. We are aware that OMWD has begun design work for the expansion of their recycled water pipeline infrastructure in its northwest quadrant from a supply so urce located in El Camino Real. • Landscape irrigation to the commercial center at the intersection of La Costa Bou levard and El Camino Real. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-33 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 80 of 223 2. 3. 4. Nov.8,2012 Page 2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES Comment 2, Page No. 1, Second Paragraph: "The effect of ES8 would be to terminate the Gafner Plant as the dedicated source of recycled water to the south golf course and cause abandonment of the facility, which has no other customer for recycled water." Response: The effect of CMWD's ES8 pipeline within El Camino Real is not to terminate the Gafner Plant. CMWD currently supplies recycled water to the La Costa North Golf Course via its pipeline connection along Poinsettia Lane. CMWD also retails recycled water to the South Golf Course through the supply connection from the Gafner Plant. The LWD does have options for sale of recycled water to other agencies, and we have noted that State and Federal funding is being pursued by LWD for that purpose. In addition, at meetings of the North County Recycled Water Group, LWD has made several comments that they are in discussions with other agencies to deliver recycled water south of CMWD. The ES8 pipeline has been sized to receive recycled water from the Gafner Plant as well, provided LWD upgrades their existing effluent pump station at the Gafner Plant to provide the required flow rates and water pressure for CMWD's use within its distribution pipeline system, and a new agreement for purchase of recycled water is successfully negotiated between CMWD and LWD. Comment 3, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "The MND fails to address the physical impacts associated with shutting down the Gafner Plant and new impacts that would result from construction of duplicate replacement facilities across a private resort, golf course and regional waterway." Response: Shutting down the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project; and therefore, no discussion is required in the MND. The pipeline ES8 is also not a duplicate supply, refer to response to Comment 1. The MND does provide detail, {Section 4 Biological Resources), on impacts due to the construction of a new pipeline (ES8). Comment 4, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "Instead, the MND erroneously concludes that the decision to abandon the Gafner Plant has already been made and that construction of the new pipeline will not cause any environmental impacts because it will occur within existing roadways." Response: The project description in the MND is now modified to delete references to abandoning the Gafner Plant and provide a more detail description of the alignment for Pipeline Segment ES8 (refer to Response to Comment 2). With regard to Pipeline ES8, the MND does provide detail, (Section 4 Biological Resources), of impacts due to the construction a new pipeline. Comment 5, Page 1, Third Paragraph: "LWWD submits that construction of a new pipeline to duplicate the services of an existing public facility is not a wise expenditure of public funds." Response: Constructing Pipeline ES8 will not duplicate services provided to CMWD's irrigation customers, refer to response to Comment 1. Pipeline ES8 is a wise investment of public funds as it will lower the expenditure of public funds related to purchasing recycled water from the Gafner Plant. The effective recycled water rate to CMWD from the Gafner Plant supply is approximately $2,000/AF, which is 5. significantly higher than the cost from other sources. Discussions with LWD indicate a potential willingness to change the terms to reduce this unit cost, but the stated cost to date is still significant ly higher than CMWD's other sources. In addition, the existing Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility (CWRF) in combination with Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) has sufficient capacity that can be utilized to supply recycled water to the La Costa South Golf Course as well as the other use sites located along the alignment of Pipeline ES8 at substantially lower cost and the recycled water has sufficient pressure to be used in the golf course irrigation system without additional pumping by the golf course operations. An economic analysis was performed to confirm that CMWD will be able to offset the ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND [EIA 12-02) Page RTC-34 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 81 of 223 5. cont. 6. Nov. 8, 2012 Page 3 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES construction cost for Pipeline Segment ES8 within a few years based on the cost savings from utilizing the other sources of recycled water available to CMWD, and the increased recycled water demand from CMWD customer use sites along the alignment of pipeline ES8 will further assist in lowering cost to CMWD's system through economy of scale. Comment 6, Page 1, Third Paragraph: "if the CMWD wishes to pursue this course of action, it must first prepare and environmental impact report ("EIR") that fully discloses and considers all environmental impacts related to construction of new, redundant facilities and the resulting physical shut-down of an existing plant." Response: CMWD has met all CEQA requirements by preparing a Project level Program Environmental Impact Report for the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan that includes Pipeline Segment ES8 as well as a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase Ill recycled water project. Abandoning the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase Ill Project or the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. The project description in the MND is modified to make this clear, refer to response to Comment 2. Figure 9 in the MND is modified to show that the Gafner Plant is an existing facility. Pipeline ES8 is not a redundant facility as noted in response to Comment 1. This pipeline could also connect directly to the existing pipeline from the Gafner Plant to supply recycled water to CMWD's distribution pipeline system. Comment 7, Page No. 2 Project Description first paragraph: "The Project description of the ES8 segment does not describe the ultimate purpose of the ES8 Project element, which is to replace and cause abandonment of the Gafner Plant. Instead, the MND erroneously identifies the Gafner Plant as an inactive facility (See, e.g., Figure 9.)." Response: Abandoning the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the proposed Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. The ultimate purpose of expanding the recycled water distribution system is to reduce CMWD's demand on the imported water supply, and provide a more reliable water supply to 7. irrigation customers through implementation of cost effective improvements. The project description in the MND has been modified to make this clear, refer to response to Comment 2. 8. The purpose of pipeline ES8 is not to replace and cause abandonment for the Gafner Plant. The new pipeline ES8 has been sized for additional recycled water deliveries to numerous user site locations along its alignment, and to OMWD. In addition, it can be used to obtain recycled water from the Gafner Plant if LWD upgrades the existing plant effluent pump station at the Gafner Plant, and a new or amended agreement can be reached between CMWD and LWD on supplying recycled water from the Gafner Plant. Figure 9 in the MND is now modified to show that the Gafner Plant is an existing facility. Comment 8, Page 2, "CMWD staff has stated that the aging nature of the Gafner WRP has led to number of operational issues. Gafner WRP has frequent start ups and downs that most likely exacerbate the operational issues that CMWD currently pays to resolve." Response: The City's Water Operations Staff monitors the use of both potable water and recycled water used at the South Golf Course. There have been periods of time when a large increase in the potable water use and decreased recycled water use has occurred as a result of the Gafner Plant operation not being sufficient or timely to meet the demand at the South Golf Course. Reference is made to LWD's letter to Steve Plyler of Water Operations, dated September 3, 2008, which states "operational issues (adequate chlorine concentration time and turbidity) prevented the delivery of recycled water." These operational issues persisted from March 14th through April 18th_,, Our intent was not to highlight actual operational or water quality issues of the Gafner Plant which can be obtained from the Regional Water ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-35 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 82 of 223 8. cont. 9. Nov.8,2012 Page4 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES Quality Control Board records, but rather, to indicate that the historic delivery to the La Costa South Golf Course has encountered operational issues in the actual quantity and timely delivery of recycled water to CMWD's customer as stated in a letter prepared by LWD. The golf course staff has indicated that they do not take recycled water on a daily basis from the Gafner Plant supply due to changes in the weather and available on site storage in their storage pond. LWD has indicated that starting the Gafner Plant up and shutting it down with the short notice provided by the South Golf Course operator does create operational issues. By implementing Pipeline ES8, the south golf course flows would be accommodated by CMWD's other two supply sources and storage; and therefore, would not require start up or shut down of treatment facilities based on the South Golf Course fluctuating irrigation demands. CMWD records indicate that LWD payments or credits to CMWD have been made to CMWD for operational issues for the following years: 2008 -$13,763; 2009-$16,371; 2011 -$12,114. Comment 9, Page 2: "The Gafner WRP is not optimally utilized since the south course demand is far less than the minimum amount of recycled water that CMWD is required to purchase from LWWD. To further compound the problem, the La Costa Resort & Spa further reduces recycled water demand to its south golf course by blending Gafner RWP effluent with potable water to decrease TDS concentrations for irrigation on golf course tees and putting greens." Response: The La Costa South Golf Course operations staff currently utilizes recycled water from of the Gafner Plant effluent. The grass grown on the tees and greens is a hybrid turf that is cut short creating stress on the grass. The TDS concentration from the Recycled Water creates additional stress with unsatisfactory conditions for use on the tees and greens. La Costa Operations staff recently upgrading its golf course irrigation system on the North Golf Course so it can irrigate the tees and greens with potable water separately from the fairways and other landscaped areas. La Costa Resort plans to upgrade the South Golf Course in the near future including irrigating the tees and greens with potable water separately from the fairways and other landscaped areas. Their irrigation system will be similar to the newer golf courses in Carlsbad such as Aviara Golf Course, and the Crossings Golf Course, and result in a more efficient use of recycled water and potable water. This change will lower their operating cost on the South Golf Course. The changes being made will reduce the amount of recycled water being used on the South Golf Course which is directly related to taking turf out. CMWD's recycled water policy mandates recycled water use to the maximum practical and cost effective extent, but allows site owners to choose specific use areas on their sites meeting all State requirements for appropriate use. CMWD's Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility does have the ability to lower TDS through the use of its reverse osmosis process as well. Carlsbad utilizes micro filtration with Reverse Osmosis which the Gafner Plant does not currently incorporate. Comment 10, Page 2: "The La-Costa Resort & Spa in 2010 indicated that they are planning on significant changes, which include reducing the amount of irrigated turf, and piping potable water to the greens and tees. These changes will further reduce their irrigation demand on the recycled water supply." lO. Response: The changes being made by the La Costa Resort operations will actually result in a more efficient use of available recycled water supplies, which is directly related to removing the amount of turf out of irrigation. There is no incentive by CMWD to have its customers use more recycled water than they require for their landscaping. We applaud any efficiency improvements made by our customers, and will not discourage that practice. Efficiency improvements have been made by other CMWD customers and are resulting in operational savings for CMWD with its recycled water distribution system. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-36 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 83 of 223 11. 12. Nov.8,2012 Page 5 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES Comment 11, Page 2: "The Master Plan assumed that max1m1zing the Gafner Plant would require replacement of 27,000 feet of secondary affluent pipeline from the Gafner Plant. The Master Plan includes a cost to expand the Gafner Plant with membrane filtration and reverse osmosis which are not necessary to meet current discharge requirements for the Gafner Plant. As a result of the false assumptions above and others included in the Master Plan, it provides an inflated cost of several million dollars to maximize use of the Gafner Plant." Response: In accordance with LWD's Asset Management Plan, dated June 11, 2008 prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., replacement funding was clearly noted for the secondary effluent pump station and force main utilized in supplying secondary treated water to the Gafner Plant. The total replacement amount listed in LWD's Asset Management Plan was $15,140,000 with approximately $6 million identified to be required between the years 2011 through 2015. If the Gafner Plant is expanded and used to serve new CMWD customers, more stringent regulations from other groundwater basins will also apply such as iron, manganese, and TDS, which is presently not addressed in the discharge order for the Gafner Plant. Water quality could therefore be a potential issue when utilizing the Gafner Plant supply source within the CMWD recycled water distribution system which needs to be considered. Planning level estimates were utilized for six supply alternative analyses in the 2012 RWMP. Alternative No. 3 consisting of maximizing the Gafner WRP was more than three times more expensive than any other alternative ava ilab le to CMWD's distribution system. Comment 12, Page 2, "Most importantly, the Master Plan did not consider the alternative of continuing use of the existing Gafner Plant facilities under a renegotiated agreement to continue a service that has been in place for more than 50 years, an alternative that would not require any major capital investment." Response: The Master Plan included six Recycled Water Supply Alternatives. Four of the alternatives include the use of the Gafner Plant under an extension of the current agreement. These four alternatives did not include any capital investment in the Gafner Plant; however, since the proposed Phase Il l Recycled Water Project demand is greater than existing available suppl ies, major capital investments by CMWD is required to secure new recycled water supplies for all alternatives. The recommended supply alternative, maximizes the efficient use of CMWD's CWRF, and the MWRF as presented in the Recycled Water Master Plan which was based on the lowest cost recycled water supply to CMWD. We also want to clarify, that the current agreement between LWD and CMWD dated March 25, 1991, is not fifty years. We provided notice on June 5, 2012 to provide a one year notice to terminate the agreement. The written notice· was based on an economic analysis of continuing to use the Gafner Plant compared to the other recycled water sources available to CMWD. City of Carlsbad and LWD staff had several meetings over the past four years discussing the terms of a replacement or amended agreement primarily in relation to the purchase cost and the ability for LWD to meet pressure and supply requirements for de livery into CMWD's distribution system. Some of these meetings are noted in the October 14, 2009 letter submitted by LWD to Mark Stone of CMWD, where LWD included a proposal to modify terms of the current agreement for example. Letters from LWD as well as discussions at meetings with LWD were referenced in reviewing the facilities required to expand CMWD's recycled water distribution system in its 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan and also the various source of supply alternatives available to CMWD presently. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-37 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 84 of 223 Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study Case Number: Project Title: Lead Agency: Contact Person: Project Location: EIA 12-02 Phase Ill Recycled Water Project City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Barbara Kennedy (760) 602-4626 The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in the County of San, Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) service area (see Figure 1). A small portion of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) is located in the City of Vista and a small portion (Expansion Segment 5) is located in the City of Oceanside. The project will occur within public rights-of-way (ROW) and easements, with the exception of a portion of ES 8 that would extend across La Costa Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at the existing CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, 92011. Expansion Segment lA (ES lA) is located in existing roadways south of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, and along Camino Via Roble. Expansion Segment 2 (ES 2) is located south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, along the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) railroad track and Avenida Encinas. Expansion Segment 4A (ES 4A) is located in South Melrose Avenue in the City of Vista, just east of the boundary of Carlsbad and Vista. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) north and south of State Route 78 along the Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansion Segment 7 (ES 7) is located south of State Route 78, west of College Avenue, and north east of Carlsbad Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El Camino Real between Aviara and La Costa Avenue. Expansion Segment 9 (ES 9) is located north of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, east of Highway 101, and south of Poinsettia Avenue. Expansion Segment 18 (ES 18) is located southwest of Maerkle Reservoir along Palmer Way and Impala Drive. Project Applicant/Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 General Plan Designation: Public ROW -Not Applicable Public Utilities (U) Zoning: Public ROW -Not Applicable Public Utility (P-U) Brief Description of Project: Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase Ill, would expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase Ill project would expand the treatment capacity (from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-1 Soplombor 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 86 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-INITIAL STUDY irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area (see Figure 2). Existing Land Use and Setting: See Table 1. The Phase Ill project would be constructed within the CWRF, within existing and planned roadway ROW, the South La Costa Go lf Course, and within the BNSF railroad right of way. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Table 1. Existing land uses in the project vicinity include residences, commercial centers, industrial and business parks, and utility infrastructure. Acronyms: AB Assembly Bill HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons afy acre feet per year HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan BMP Best Management Practice HMP Habitat Management Plan BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway HPMR Habitat Preservation and Management CARB California Air Resources Board Requirements CDF California Department of Forestry and MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act Fire Protection MG million gallon CDFG California Department of Fish and Game MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program CDP Coastal Development Permit N20 Nitrous Oxide CEQA California Environmental Quality Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards CFC Chlorofluorocarbon NAHC Native American Heritage Commission CH4 Methane NOx Nitrogen oxides CIPs Capital Improvement Projects OMWD Olivenhain Municipal Water District CMP Congestion Management Program PF Cs Perfluorocarbons CMWD Carlsbad Municipal Water District PM10 Respirable particulate matter CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database PM2.s Fine particulate matter CNPS California Native Plant Society RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy co Carbon Monoxide ROW right(s)-of-way CO2 Carbon Dioxide RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan C02e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board CWRF Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility SAN DAG San Diego Association of Governments DEH County of San Diego Department of SDAB San Diego Air Basin Environmental Health SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District DOC Department of Conservation SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SIP State Implementation Plan EIR Environmental Impact Report SW PPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ES Expansion Segment USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility VID Vista Irrigation District FHWA Federal Highway Administration voe Volatile organic compounds VWD Vallecitos Water District I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-2 ~optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 87 of 223 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Project Description/Environmental Setting Project Description CMWD provides potable water and recycled water within a portion of the City located approximately 35 miles north of downtown San Diego. As shown in Figure 1, CMWD's service area covers most of the City's boundary. CMWD is a subsidiary district of the City of Carlsbad. The mayor and City Council are CMWD's governing board. The project study area is the service area of CMWD as well as some of the surrounding areas of three neighboring agencies. These neighboring agencies are the City of Oceanside, Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), and Vista Irrigation District (VID). The CMWD has been providing recycled water to the city since 1991. The CMWD 2012 RWMP guides the continued development of the CMWD recycled water system. Currently, CMWD's existing recycled water system extends to all parts of the CMWD service area except the upper portion of the northwest quadrant and the portion of the Vallecitos Water District (VWD) service area within the Carlsbad city limits. The proposed project is the implementation of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) identified in the 2012 RWMP to expand recycled water service to the northwest quadrant of the CMWD service area, and three water service providers including the City of Oceanside, OMWD, and VID. The CIP projects addressed in this document will collectively be referred to as the project. Implementation of the 2012 RWMP is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build- out. Phases I and II were previously implemented as part of a previous RWMP program. It is anticipated that an additional 3,135 acre feet per year (afy), or 2.8 million gallons per day, of recycled water would be required to serve demand at the completion of Phase Ill (Year 2020). The anticipated demand from inside the CMWD service area in 1,985 afy, and 1,150 afy would be needed by the neighboring agencies. The project would implement the Phase Ill facility improvements to meet the additional demand. Phase Ill includes the most feasible alignments for expansion of the recycled water system. This would expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad, as well as fill in existing service areas, and begin initial expansion into the neighboring agencies through wholesale service to VID for the Shadowridge Golf Course, OMWD for irrigation use at schools and common areas in the Village Park area of Encinitas, and Oceanside at the El Camino Country Club Golf Course, Ocean Hills Golf Course, and MiraCosta College. The Phase Ill project would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Phase Ill project consists of the following facility improvements. Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion The CWRF is owned by CMWD; howev,er, the Encina Wastewater Authority has been contracted to provide operation and maintenance of the CWRF through a memorandum of understanding dated May 1, 2005. CWRF currently operates as a tertiary treatment plant, treating secondary effluent from the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF), located adjacent to the CWRF. To meet future demand, the RWMP recommends the expansion of CWRF, maintaining current supply from the Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility, and abandoning discontinuing CMWD use of the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. The Phase Ill expansion of the CWRF would increase capacity by installing additional filtration units and a chlorine contact basin within the existing facility, as shown on Figure 3. The expansion would increase capacity by an additional 4.0 mgd, for a total capacity of 8.0 mgd, to meet Phase Ill demand and replace the 0.6 mgd of discontinued capacity from the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. The CWRF already has approximately 14.4 mgd of pumping capacity and no additional pumps would be installed as part of the project. Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion The Phase Ill project would include the installation of new pipelines, conversion of existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofitting landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water and provide supply to proposed land development projects. The recycled water expansion segments that would require new pipeline are described below. A total of be 96,600 linear feet of pipeline is proposed for the Phase Ill expansion segments. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-3 ~optember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 88 of 223 I ATKINS PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This page intentionally left blank. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-6 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 91 of 223 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The future recycled water customers that would be added to the recycled water system as part of Phase Ill are located adjacent to existing facilities and would require conversion or retrofitting of existing facilities. These customers would not require any new pipeline to connect to the recycled water system. Expansion Segment 1 consists of a total of 9,400 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a system demand of 99 afy. As shown in Figure 4, ES 1 is located in the center of CMWD's service area in Zone 550 and consists of connecting customers in the business park surrounding Palomar Airport Road. ES 1 would be located within existing roads and CMWD ROW. Expansion Segment 2 consists of a total of 17,500 feet of 8-inch to 18-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of 782 afy. This segment in Zone 384 would extend the recycled water system north from CWRF along Avenida Encinas to the new power plant and across the lagoon, as shown in Figure 5. Expansion Segment 4A would evaluate the potential of serving demands within the VID and provide wholesale Service to VID at Shadowridge Water Reclamation Plant and the Ocean Hills Golf Course in Oceanside. No new pipelines would be installed for this project component by CMWD. As shown in Figure 6, Expansion Area 4A would make use of an existing 12-inch diameter pipeline in Melrose Avenue that would connect to an existing pipeline in Faraday Avenue in the 660 Zone. Expansion Area 4A would serve the Shadowridge Golf Course, which has an estimated demand of 300 afy, and the Ocean Hills Golf Course with a demand of 180 afy. Expansion Segment 5 consists of 46,100 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of 454 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 384, extending the recycled water distribution system north along El Camino Real to serve the second phase of the Robertson Ranch development, several existing homeowners associations, and existing landscape irrigation. This segment also includes the El Camino Country Club within the city of Oceanside with a demand of 180 afy. ES 5 would be located within existing roads in CMWD and City of Oceanside ROW, as shown in Figure 7. Expansion Segment 7 consists of 7,000 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of 114 afy. ES 7 would provide service to the proposed Quarry Creek development, a homeowners association, and existing school landscape in Zone 580 and MiraCosta College in Oceanside. A pressure regulator would potentially be required for this segment. However, if needed, this would be constructed on site as part of the Quarry Creek development and paid for by the developer. Need for the pressure regulator would be determined as part of design for the Quarry Creek development and considered in the environmental analysis for the Quarry Creek project. Therefore, the pressure regulator is not considered part of the proposed Phase Ill project. As shown in Figure 8, the anticipated alignment for ES 7 is along Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 consists of 9,900 feet of 6-inch to 12-inch diameter pipeline to serve La Costa Resort and Spa and OMWD demands with an ultimate system demand of 420 afy. This includes 2,800 feet of pipeline to feed the South La Costa golf course, which would connect Leucadia Wastewater District to the CMWD recycled water system. CMWD could purchase or lease an existing pipeline directly from Leucadia Wastewater District to serve the South La Costa golf course; however, this analysis assumes that a new pipeline will be built. This segment would be a part of Zone 384. As shown in Figure 9, Expansion Segment 8 consists of a pipeline along El Camino Real that would connect CMWD's recycled water system to OMWD and existing landscape irrigation at La Costa Resort and Spa. ES 8 would be located within existing roads and CMWD ROW, with the exception of the pipeline to the South La Costa golf course, which may be placed outside of the existing public ROW. Expansion Segment 9 consists of 4,800 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of 91 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 318, expanding the recycled water system south to the San Pacifico Homeowners Association and various existing landscape irrigation and potential development areas, as shown in Figure 10. A portion of this alignment extends Zone 318 south along Avenida Encinas to the Poinsettia Village shopping center and the Lake Shore Garden mobile home park. Expansion Segment 18 consists of 1,900 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a Phase Ill system demand of 25 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 550, connecting several existing commercial irrigation demands north of Faraday Avenue to the existing recycled water distribution system. ES 18 would be located within existing roads in CMWD ROW, as shown in Figure 11. I ATKIN S CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-8 lioptombor 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 93 of 223 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Storage Additional recycled water storage is proposed to be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site. This includes either constructing a new 1.5 million gallon (MG) steel tank adjacent to the existing two tanks or relocating an existing 1.5 MG steel tank to the site. The location of the proposed tank site is shown in Figure 12. Construction would include an at-grade concrete ring wall to support the 1.5 MG tank. The site is already graded with an existing paved access road. Construction Schedule and Methods The Phase Ill project would be completed between 2014 and 2020. Based on the 2012 RWMP, construction of the CWRF expansion, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would begin as early as 2014. ES 1 and ES 2 would begin construction as early as 2015. ES 4A would also be completed in 2015, but would not require any heavy construction activities. The CWRF expansion and Twin D tank construction or relocation would each take approximately 18 months to complete. Pipelines would be installed at a rate of 80 feet to 100 feet per day; therefore, pipeline project components would take between two months (ES 9) and 29 months (ES 5) to complete. Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase Ill project would utilize typical construction equipment including dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation project components would utilize open trenching or trench less (directional drilling or jack-and-bore) methods. Open trench pipeline construction would require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the diameter of the pipe and its depth. Trenchless recycled water pipeline project components include crossing Palomar Airport Road along Avenida Encinas (ES 2), crossing the BNSF railroad tracks (ES 2), and crossing San Marcos Creek in the South La Costa golf course (ES 8). Encinitas Creek currently flows through a culvert under La Costa Avenue. Pipeline under La Costa Avenue (ES 8) would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil beneath the road surface and above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert would not be directly affected by construction. Two portions of ES 8 pipeline would be installed on the sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. Attaching the pipelines to the bridges would not require ground-disturbing construction activity. The installation of pipelines within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require a temporary lane or roadway closure during construction activities. No grading would be required for the proposed CWRF expansion because it would occur on the existing building pads. Permits Required The approval of the Phase Ill project requires the affirmative vote of the CMWD Board of Directors. However, implementation of the individual facilities that comprise the proposed project may require that the CMWD obtain approval, permits, licenses, certifications or other entitlements from various federal, state, and local agencies, as shown in Table 1 in Appendix A. Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses The environmental setting and land uses surrounding each of the project components are provided in Table 1. Regulatory Compliance Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to various environmental topics. Applicable regulations are listed in Appendix A. Project Design and Construction Measures The CMWD has incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The project design features and construction measures are provided in Appendix A. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-17 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 102 of 223 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Table 1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses Project Component Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses Carlsbad Water The expansion would be located within the existing CWRF facility. The proposed chlorine contact basin and Recycling granular media filtration equipment would be located within a new concrete structure. The two concrete Facility tanks that contain the treatment system would be surrounded by other CWRF facilities to the south, east, and Expansion west, and the EWPCF to the north. Existing vegetation within the CWRF facility site surrounding the structures consists of non-native and/or ornamental species. Expansion Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Corte del Noga[, Corte de Abeta, Yarrow Segment 1 Drive, Carta de la Pina, Cosmos Court, Corte del Cedro, and Las Palmas Drive. These roadways are within an existing business park including office and light industrial development. Pipelines would be located within the BNSF railroad ROW and the following existing roadways: Cannon Road, Expansion Avenida Encinas, Palomar Airport Road, and Oceanview Drive. Land uses along the rail corridor include the Segment 2 new power plant. Land uses along Avenida Encinas include power plant infrastructure, hotels, office and industrial parks, open space, the railroad track, and the CWRF. Land uses along Palomar Airport Road include open space and a hotel. Land uses along Oceanview Drive include mobile home residences. Expansion The existing pipeline is located within South Melrose Drive in the city of Vista. Land uses along this roadway Segment 4A include open space, industrial parks, commercial land use, single-family residences, and the Shadowridge Country Club and golf course. Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Vista Way, Haymar Drive, El Camino Real, Marron Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, Pointe Avenue, Tamarack Avenue, Palisades Drive, High Ridge Drive, Telescope Avenue, Pontiac Drive, Regent Road, Southampton Road, Chancery Court, Chelsea Court, Salisbury Court, Dorchester Place, Carnaby Court, Buckingham Lane, Kelly Drive, and Park Drive. Land uses along Vista Way include hotels and visitor serving commercial uses, El Camino Country Club and golf course, and medical offices. Land uses along Haymar Drive include open space, a driving range, and commercial land uses. Land uses along El Camino Real include commercial and entertainment land uses, multi-family and single-family Expansion residences, medical offices, and open space. Land uses along Marron Road include commercial land use, multi- Segment 5 family residences, Westfield Plaza mall, and open space. Land uses along Carlsbad Village Drive include multi- family and single-family residences. Pointe Avenue and Palisades Drive are located in a single family residential neighborhood north of Tamarack Avenue. Land uses along Tamarack Avenue include open space and single- family residences. High Ridge Drive and Telescope Avenue are located in a single-family residential development south of Tamarack Avenue, and Regent Road, Southampton Road, Chancery Court, Chelsea Court, Salisbury Court, Dorchester Place, Carnaby Court, and Buckingham Lane are located in a single-family residential neighborhood east of El Camino Real. Land uses along Kelly Drive include single-family residences, open space, Kelly Elementary School, and Laguna Riviera City Park. Land uses along Park Drive include open space and Laguna Riviera City Park. Expansion Pipeline would be installed within the following existing roadways within a single-family residential Segment 7 neighborhood: Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Drive. Portions of ES 8 would be installed within the following existing roadways: La Costa Avenue and El Camino Expansion Real. Land uses along these roadways include open space, commercial development, single-family and multi- Segment 8 family residential development, and the La Costa Resort and golf course. The remaining portion of the expansion segment would traverse La Costa golf course property from El Camino Real to the existing golf course lake. Pipeline would be installed in several existing roadways: Avenida Encinas, Ponto Drive, and Navigator Circle. Expansion Land uses along Avenida Encinas include the Lake Shore Garden mobile home residential neighborhood and Segment 9 the Poinsettia Village commercial development. Open space is located on either side of Ponto Drive. Navigator Circle is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. ' Expansion Pipeline would be installed in the existing Palmer Way and Impala Drive roadway ROW. These roadways are Segment 18 located in an existing business park including office and light industrial uses. The new or relocated steel tank would be located on a currently graded site that contains two existing steel 1.5 MG Steel tanks for recycled water storage. The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline at the site. Existing Tank vegetation adjacent to the steel tank site consists of non-native and/or ornamental species. The storage tank site is surrounded by single-family residential development. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-19 Seplember 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 104 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Evaluation of Environmental Impacts The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR, Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source 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. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." • The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-lnitial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there is one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there is mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-lnitial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-21 September 15', 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 106 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. As discussed above in the Project Description, several potential customers located adjacent to existing recycled water facilities would be connected to the recycled water system. No physical environmental changes would occur as a result of these connections; therefore, they are not included in the analysis below. This document incorporates by reference the analysis contained in the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and CMWD Water and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006) (2012 Master Plans EIR), which was released for public review in July 2012. The 2012 Master Plans EIR addresses the potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Sewer, Water, and Recycled Water Master Plan CIP Projects, including the CWRF expansion and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 18. This Initial Study also uses the information included in the previous Initial Study and Environmental Checklist prepared for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase II Project in December, 1999, which included construction of the CWRF. Each of these prior certified environmental documents is herein incorporated by reference. This EIA contains information summarized from these prior documents to facilitate the reader's review of this document where appropriate. All referenced documents are available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. The proposed ES 4A consists of using an existing pipeline to provide recycled water service to the Shadowridge golf course. No new pipeline would be installed as part of this project component and no other construction activities would be required. The 2012 Master Plans EIR assumed that 700 feet of pipeline would be installed as part of ES 4A, but determined that installation would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts that would require mitigation. ES 4A as proposed would not result in any physical environmental effects because no construction would be required; therefore, consistent with the determination of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, ES 4A would not result in any physical environmental impacts and is not included in the EIA below. The potential environmental impacts of the CWRF expansion and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 18 are addressed in the following EIA. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D ~ D b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings D D ~ D within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or D D ~ D quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which D D ~ D would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Explanation: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed expansion segments are below-ground installations, and the CWRF expansion consists of interior improvements to an existing facility. Following construction, the project would have no visual impact. The CWRF expansion and construction or relocation of the tank at the Twin D tank site would not result in te_mporary construction impacts because the construction area would be within the CMWD property, isolated from public view. However, temporary visual impacts would occur from construction of the expansion segments due to unsightly trenching and stockpiling in public roadways, and presence of heavy construction equipment. Disturbance of ground cover, excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects 15/MND Page 15-22 September 19. 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 107 of 223 ENVIRON MENTAL INITIAL STUDY equipment would temporarily degrade the pre-existing visual character at the construction sites and their surroundings. Short-term impacts associated with construction would be a substantial adverse change in existing visual character. However, the CMWD has committed to the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase Ill project during construction activities, including removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing setting, and restoring disturbed areas following construction. Therefore, visual impacts would be minimized during construction activities and disturbed areas would be re-vegetated or repaved to ensure that all disturbed areas of the construction site return to pre-existing visual character conditions after completion of construction. Temporary construction impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no designated State Scenic highways in the project study area. However, Interstate 5 is an eligible State Scenic highway and Carlsbad has its own scenic roadways program. Scenic roadways listed in the Carlsbad General Plan in the proximity of the project include El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, La Costa Avenue, Melrose Drive, College Boulevard, Cannon Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, Faraday Avenue, Interstate 5, and Poinsettia Lane. The BNSF railroad line is also considered a scenic corridor. However, as discussed above under question la), the proposed project would not result in any permanent visual impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above under question la), the proposed project would not result in any permanent visual impacts. Impacts related to existing visual character and quality would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed expansion segments are below-ground installations. The CWRF expansion consists of a concrete structure, and the new steel storage tanks would be located on the same site as two existing steel tanks. Similar to the existing tanks, the new tank would be painted with low-glare coatings so that reflection is kept to a minimum. No new lighting or potential sources of glare are proposed. Construction would be limited to daytime hours and would not require construction lighting. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Less Than Less Than Potentially Significant Impact Significant With Significant Mitigation Impact No Impact 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, 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 to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: 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 non-agricultural use? D I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-23 D D September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 108 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Explanation: Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Less Than Less Than Significant With Significant Mitigation Impact No Impact D D ~ D D D D D D 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 non-agricultural use? No Impact. There are only a limited number of areas within Carlsbad that include important farmlands as defined by the California Department of Conservation. Carlsbad consists mainly of Urban and Built-Up Land along the western, southern, and northwestern portions of the city, with large areas of "Other Land" interspersed throughout the eastern and central portions (Dudek 2003). "Other Land" consists of land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments and brush or sensitive habitat areas not suitable for agriculture. One small Williamson Act contract area is located within Carlsbad, east of Interstate 5 at Palomar Airport Road (DOC 2009) and it not located in the vicinity of any project component. No agricultural uses occur within the areas of the VID or Oceanside Water District adjacent to the proposed recycled water infrastructure alignments in these jurisdictions (City of Vista 2011 and DOC 2008). The CWRF expansion and new storage tank consist of improvements to existing facilities and would not result in any conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural use. The proposed pipelines would be located within existing roadways or developed areas and would not affect any existing agricultural operations or preclude future agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. See response to question 2a). No impact to agricultural land would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? No Impact. The CMWD recycled water service area does not include any forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production (CDF 2003). No forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production occurs within the areas of the VID or Oceanside Water District where recycled water infrastructure alignments would be extended. No impact to forest land or timberland would occur. d) Resu lt in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. See response to question 2c). No impact to forest land would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. See response to questions 2a) and 2c). No impact to agricultural land or forest land would occur. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-24 goptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 109 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY level thresholds can be used to demonstrate whether a project's total emissions would result in a significant impact to regional air quality. Construction of the project would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions generated primarily from construction equipment exhaust, earth disturbance, construction worker vehicle trips, and heavy duty truck trips. The 2012 Master Plans EIR quantified the worst-case construction emissions that would result from simultaneous implementation of the three master plans. The worst-case construction scenario included installation of 124,414 feet of pipeline (including approximately 63,480 linear feet for ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18), pump and lift station removals and replacements, removal and relocation of a storage tank at the Twin D site, access road installations, and the CWRF expansion project. The worst-case analysis assumed that all projects would be constructed simultaneously and completed in seven months. It was assumed that 890 linear feet of pipeline would be installed per day for all three Master Plan CIP Programs. The 2012 Master Plans EIR included the worst-case construction scenario for the Phase Ill project that ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, placement of a new tank at the Twin D site, and the CWRF expansion would all be under construction in 2014. Construction of the Phase Ill RWMP pipeline projects were assumed to be installed at a rate of 80 feet to 100 feet per day. In reality, the project components would not all be constructed in 2014. The Phase Ill project would be installed at a slower pace and over a longer period of time compared to the 2012 Master Plans EIR assumptions, and would therefore result in reduced maximum daily emissions compared to the EIR assumptions. The maximum daily emissions associated with the worst-case construction scenario are provided in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, implementation of the Sewer, Water, and Recycled Master Plans simultaneously, including the worst-case construction scenario for the Phase Ill project, would result in less than significant emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction of the proposed CIP projects. The Phase Ill project would also implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Appendix A to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction of Phase Ill project, including covering or applying soil stabilizer to unpaved surfaced, restoring disturbed areas when construction is complete, using alternative sources of power when feasible, installing air filters on construction engines, implementing a traffic control plan, locating staging areas away from residences, and limiting truck idling. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Table 2 Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction Maximum Daily Emissions, pounds per day Emission Source voe NO, co so, PM10(3J PM2.s (3) Total Worst-Case Construction Scenario Emissions 17 94 63 0 66 18 Significance Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No (1) Includes hauling of imported and exported trench material (2) Architectural coasting emissions assume that all architectural coatings would be low-VOC coatings. Based on estimated interior and exterior surface area for each new reservoir, pump station, and lift station. Worker vehicle trips were estimated by URBEMIS 2007. l3l Estimates of particulate emissions take into account application of soil stabilizers to inactive areas during grading in mandatory compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55. voe= Volatile organic compounds; NO,= Nitrogen oxides; CO= carbon monoxide; SOx = Sulfur Oxides; PM 10= Respirable particulate matter; PM 2.5 = Fine particulate matter Source: URBEMIS 2007. Following construction, the new pipelines would be passive and the CWRF expansion would not require any equipment that would generate the criteria air pollutants, listed in Table 2. The underground pipelines would not require regular maintenance. No additional maintenance trips would be required to the CWRF as a result of the proposed expansion. Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips and not I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-26 Soptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 111 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY result in a significant increase in criteria pollutant emissions from vehicle trips. Operation air pollutant emission impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant. An analysis of cumulative air quality impacts takes into consideration how a project, in conjunction with cumulative projects, may impact the ambient air quality and expose sensitive receptors to criteria air pollutants. San Diego County is designated as a basic non-attainment area for the federal ozone standard, and is also a non-attainment area for the state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The County has not met the federal and/or state standards for these pollutants; therefore, significant cumulative impacts to air quality for VOCs (ozone precursor), NOx (ozone precursor), PM10, and PM2.5 currently exist. The greatest concern involving criteria air pollutants is whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 and PM25, or exceed screening level thresholds of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOx)-As discussed in Section 3 b), the project would not generate operational air pollutant emissions; therefore, only the potential cumulative impacts associated with construction-related air pollutant emissions are evaluated below. The County of San Diego's Guidelines for Determining Significance provide guidance for assessing the impact of cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants. According to these guidelines, a project would result in a cumulative impact if the proposed project, alone or in combination with the construction of another cumulative project, would exceed the significance thresholds listed in Table 2 during construction. A localized pollutant concentration analysis is appropriate to the determination of the cumulative impacts of construction emissions because pollutant emissions would disperse or settle out following construction and would not contribute to long-term concentrations of emissions in the San Diego Basin. The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis for the proposed project is area served by the CMWD, including the CMWD service area and portions of the VID and Oceanside services areas where recycled water service would be extended. As shown in Table 2, the worst-case simultaneous construction of the CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Sewer, Water, and Recycled Water Master Plans, including the worst-case construction of the Phase Ill project, would not exceed the significance thresholds. The 2012 Master Plans EIR concluded that construction would not result in significant cumulative impact because cumulative construction projects would not take place at the same time or in the same location, and relatively short construction periods are anticipated for CIP projects. The proposed project construction would be consistent with the construction assumptions in the 2012 Master Plans EIR. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact during construction. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant. None of the departments within the CMWD are listed within the 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Report for San Diego County as an organization posing possible health risks to San Diego County with regards to TACs. The proposed Phase Ill facilities are similar to existing pipelines, storage tanks, and CWRF facilities and would not result in a new source ofTACs. As discussed under question 3b), the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in a substantial net increase in vehicle trips, and would not contribute to severe traffic congestion issues with the potential to create carbon monoxide "hotspots" (defined as areas where high concentrations of carbon monoxide result from idling vehicles). Additionally, construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations, including diesel exhaust from construction equipment. Therefore, while sensitive receptors (e.g., medical facilities and residences) exist along some Phase Ill pipelines, construction activity would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant. CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-27 ~eptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 20 12 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 112 of 223 ENVIRONMENT AL INITIAL STUDY treatment plants, landfills, solid waste recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations. Construction activities are not a typical source of nuisance odors, although construction could result in minor amounts of odorous compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust or evaporation of volatile compounds within paint or other coatings. Additionally, construction equipment associated with the Phase Ill project would be operating at various locations throughout the project area and would not take place all at once. Odorous hydrocarbons emissions would dissipate beyond the emission sources and would only temporarily affect receptors in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Construction-related operations would also be temporary in nature and would cease at the completion of the installations. Therefore, odor impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. Based on CARB's list of common sources of odor complaints, recycled water projects do not typically result in a source of nuisance odors associated with operation. The pipelines would be located underground and would transport potable water. The storage tank would enclose potable water. The CWRF would continue to filter and disinfects secondary treated wastewater, rather than raw sewage, and the proposed expansion would not result in substantial odor impacts compared to existing conditions. Chemicals proposed for use in the treatment process would be in enclosed containers and would not be vented to the atmosphere. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in a significant odor impact. 4. Biological Resources Would the project: 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, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not lirpited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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 wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-28 September 19, 2012 November 14, 20 12 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 113 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Explanation: 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, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation. Information regarding biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur within the project sites and immediate vicinity was obtained from a search of biological resources databases and a review of pertinent literature, prior environmental documents, photographs, and aerial imagery. Due to the fact that the project sites are restricted to existing disturbed and developed land, no site-specific biological surveys were required to be conducted in support of the biological resources analysis. A summarized list of the primary resources consulted for the preparation of the analysis is provided below under the Biological Resource Database and Literature Review heading. The biological resources analysis included a thorough review of literature and geospatial data pertaining to biological resources, including the California Natural Diversity Database, California Native Plant Society Inventory, 2012 Master Plans EIR, and Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) mappi_ng data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper, photographs, and aerial imagery. The Phase Ill project components have been specifically designed to be restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility ROW, access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. ES 8 would cross the San Marcos Creek within the South La Costa Golf Course; however, this segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The entire South La Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf cou rse. including the existing creek alignment. The portion of the pipeline that would cross Encinitas Creek would be attached to an existing bridge and would not require ground-disturbing construction within the creek bed. These areas do not support high quality biological resources and are subject to a number of anthropogenic-related disturbances that degrade the surrounding habitat and limit use by most plant and wildlife species. As such, no direct impacts would be expected to occur to any sensitive biological resources, including special-status species. However, limited portions of several project components occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support sensitive biological resources. Therefore, construction of these components could result in indirect impacts to special-status species, as addressed further below. Special-Status Plant Species. In total, 54 special-status plant species have been reported at locations in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites (Appendix B). None of the 54 special-status plant species have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the project sites themselves. All of the project sites lack suitable habitat for special-status plant species and are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. No special-status plant species would be expected to occur within the any of the project sites given the high level of disturbance and overall unsuitability of the existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to any special-status plant species as a result of the project. Special-Status Wildlife Species. In total, 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported at locations in the vicinity of the project sites (Appendix B). None of the 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the project sites themselves. Similar to that found for special-status plant species, the project sites lack suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species given the prevalence of paved asphalt in existing ROW, disturbed bare earth in access roads, and previously graded conditions. There are a number of disturbance factors associated with the sites that would preclude most special-status wildlife species from using the area as temporary or permanent habitat. These factors include the presence of existing developments; exposure to regular disturbances, including lighting, noise, vehicle, and pedestrian activity; regional isolation and lack of direct connectivity or reasonable proximity to larger, better quality habitat; and, overall poor quality or lack of resources with respect to providing nesting, foraging, dispersal, refuge or other habitat elements important to species life history requirements. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-29 ~oplember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 114 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Most of the areas surrounding the Phase Ill sites are regularly used by vehicles and pedestrians, which present ongoing adverse direct and indirect effects associated with regular roadway use, encroachment into undeveloped areas, nighttime lighting, and high noise levels. These ongoing effects degrade the existing habitat and deter special- status wildlife species from using the area. In addition, most of the sites are constrained in all directions by existing developments, thereby reducing the likelihood for special-status wildlife species to disperse or migrate over the sites and immediate vicinity. The relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in proximity to some of the sites has been reduced to small, fragmented, and low-quality stands, which are disconnected and isolated from habitat in the local and regional area. Most of these off-site stands do not offer the space and resources required by most of the special-status wildlife species. Given these factors, special-status wildlife species would not be expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of most of the project sites. However, several of the project components contain small segments that occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could support special-status wildlife species. These components include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9. Although no direct impacts to special-status wildlife species would be expected, potential indirect impacts could occur to special-status wildlife species during project construction. The Phase Ill project components with segments that occur adjacent to undeveloped areas are depicted within Figure 13 and listed below within Table 3, along with a discussion of the potential indirect impact. Table 3 Project Component Expansion Segment 1 Expansion Segment 2 Expansion Segment 5 Expansion Segment 8 Expansion Segment9 Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species Rationale for Determination Expansion Segment 1 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of this project component within West Oaks Way and Palomar Oaks Way will occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction activities would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction would coincide with the breeding season. Expansion Segment 2 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within disturbed and developed areas. Portions of this project component near Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Encinas Power Station, and near Avenida Encinas and the CWRF facility will occur adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction activities would be restricted to existing disturbed and developed areas, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction would coincide with the breeding season. Expansion Segment 5 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of this project component that would be installed along Haymar Drive, Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Pontiac Drive, Park Drive, and Palmer Way are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, as shown in Figure 13. All construction activities would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season. Expansion Segment 8 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of this project component near El Camino Real and the La Costa Resort and Spa are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction activities would be restricted to existing developed roads and the developed South La Costa Golf Course. Trenchless construction would be used to cross San Marcos Creek within the golf course. ,aflG-fl No trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season. Expansion Segment 9 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within disturbed areas. Portions of this project component near Ponto Drive are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species and sensitive natural communities. All construction activities would be restricted to existing disturbed land, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Pa ge IS-30 £optombor 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 115 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potential indirect impacts to special-status species and their habitat from construction of the project components listed within Table 3 could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration, as discussed further below. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction; however, the CMWD has committed to daytime construction hours and construction of the project would not require the use of nighttime lighting. Therefore, no indirect impacts resulting from nighttime lighting would occur. In addition, as described in Section 9, potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through implementation of the project features listed in Appendix A, including a Storm Water General Permit, General Linear Utility Permit, and compliance with local development standards, including the preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and application of appropriate BMPs. Therefore, potential indirect impacts associated with runoff and pollutants into off-site undeveloped areas would be reduced to less than significant levels. Project components ES 1, ES 2, ES S, ES 8 and ES 9 would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas characterized by trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common and sensitive bird species, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code. Construction of the project may require the removal or trimming of common (non-sensitive) trees and shrubs within ornamental landscaped areas during the general bird nesting season (FebFl:.lary l January 15 through September 15/\1:Jg1:Jst 31) and/or raptor nesting season (January 15 through July 31), which could potentially result in impacts to nesting birds and raptors in violation of the MBTA and CDFG Code. Indirect impacts could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest, such that the disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. This represents a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-lA below would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may support special status- species. These activities could result in a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF below would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation. In total, 17 sensitive natural communities have been reported at locations in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites (Appendix B). None of the 17 communities are located within the footprints of the individual project components. As discussed in Section 4 a), all of the project sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. Therefore, sensitive natural communities are considered to be absent from the project sites and no direct impacts would occur. As discussed in Section 4 a), the project components listed within Table 3 would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas. These undeveloped areas could support sensitive natural communities. Construction activities associated with project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 could result in potential runoff and ' inadvertent intrusions of construction equip~ent and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-s.ite habitat and would be considered significant. As discussed in Section 9, potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the proposed project features and compliance with applicable regulations listed in Appendix A. Further; implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards discussed in Section 9 and implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-32 &eptember 19. 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 117 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY 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, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than significant with mitigation. All of the Phase Ill project sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW. a developed golf course. or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. No portions of the project sites occur within federally protected wetlands or other sensitive water and wetland resources subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFG. Therefore, federally protected wetlands and other jurisdictional water and wetland resources are considered to be absent from the project sites and no direct impacts would occur. As discussed in Section 4 a), the project components listed within Table 3 would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas. Of these project components, portions of ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, and ES 8 are located within upland areas that occur in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas potentially supporting wetlands. Construction activities associated with these project components could result in potential runoff and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive wetland areas adjacent to upland construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or fill-related impacts and would be considered significant. Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the project features and compliance with the regulations listed in Appendix A. Inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site wetlands would be prevented through the implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF and would mitigate potential indirect impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, potential indirect impacts to federally protected wetlands and other jurisdictional resources would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards discussed in Section 9 and implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF. 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 wildlife nursery sites? Less than significant. As discussed above within Section 4 a), the biological resources analysis included a thorough review of information pertaining to the Carlsbad HMP and Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), including regional corridors and habitat linkages. No known wildlife corridors, linkages, or nursery sites occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites. All of the sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The sites do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of any local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. No suitable habitat exists that would support a nursery site. Construction and operation of the project would not be expected to adversely affect the wildlife movement functions and values of existing habitat in the immediate vicinity of project sites. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than significant. None of the proposed project components that occur within the boundaries of the coastal zone would impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area or other protected resources, as identified within the approved Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; therefore, the project would not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant. Projects located within Carlsbad are subject to the requirements of the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (HPMR) Ordinance. The HPMR requires all development to comply with the Carlsbad HMP as well as the Implementing Agreement, the MHCP, the Natural Communities Conservation Plan and lO(a)(l)(B) permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be permitted to occur until all processing and permitting requirements of the HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled. As I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-33 geptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 118 of 223 ENVIRONMENT AL INITIAL STUDY evaluated above within Section 4 a) and Section 4 b), the project would be constructed within disturbed and developed areas. Several project components would be constructed adjacent to off-site undeveloped areas that could support sensitive species and habitat; however, avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required, potential impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the HPMR Ordinance and HMP. Implementation of the project would therefore not conflict with the adopted HPMR Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant. 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? Less than significant. As evaluated above in Section 4 a), Section 4 b), and Section 4 e), several project components could result in potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP. The CMWD is required to comply with the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the HPMR Ordinance. Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the Carlsbad Planning Division are required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the project description to be consistent with the conditions of the Carlsbad HMP. In addition, projects are required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described in the Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely affected by the project. Avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required, potential impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad HMP requirements. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would therefore not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation: The following measures would mitigate the potential significant impacts identified in Section 4 a), Section 4 b), and Section 4 c) to less than significant levels. Bio-lA Bio-lB Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code, the CMWD shall enforce the following: Prior to construction activities requiring the removal, pruning, or damage of any trees, shrubs, and man- made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) active nests or any tree 13nming or remo·,al 013erations during the 13rime nestinggeneral breeding seasons, that being from March lS to May 30 January 15 to September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey shall survey the trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component.of tree remo1ral or 13runing. If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction. or if any active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for construction, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor construction activities. No construction activities shall fie tree 13runing or removal 013erations can occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nest¥a€J-tea or until the end of the j*ime-general breeding season, whichever occurs later. m adaition, f)Fior to any tree removal or 13runing 013erations 13ro13osea outsiae of the 13rime nesting season but within the 13erioa of January 15 to Se13tember lS, a8 qualified biologist shall confirmL in writingL that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans. Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-34 lloptember 19. 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 119 of 223 Bio-lC Bio-lD Bio-lE Bio-lF ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project plans that clearly depict the construction work limits, including construction staging and storage areas, in order to determine which specific portion(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space areas during the pre-construction survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of the adjacent open space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the likelihood for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the area. The pre-construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior to construction in order to verify the need for additional construction measures proposed within Bio-lC through Bio-lF. Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio- lB that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior to and concurrent with construction. Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 through September 15). If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lB that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence. Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lB that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of equipment outside of the project boundaries. Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lB that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. J ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-35 ~eptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 120 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY s. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Explanation: Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Less Than Significant With Mitigation D D D D Less Than Significant Impact ~ ~ ~ ~ No Impact D D D D Information presented in this section is based upon a cultural resources records search performed by Atkins at the South Coastal Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase Ill project. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the record search conducted for the Master Plans EIR, no historical resources are located within one mile of the proposed Phase Ill pipeline alignments, Twin D site, or the CWRF expansion. Therefore, it is unlikely that the project would cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts would be considered less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. Numerous archaeological resources of varying sizes are located within the project area. Archaeological resources are generally S'qually distributed throughout the project area, but can be described as concentrated around and near existing, large water resources, including Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoon. Based upon the frequency and distribution of these sites, as well as the results of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) records search, the entirety of the project area is considered to exhibit high archaeological resource sensitivity. The records search conducted for the 2012 Master Plans EIR identified one known archaeological resource withm the ~rm<imity ofpotential to be impacted by ES 7, as proposed in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. Refer to Table 4.4-4 of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects with Potential to Result in Significant Impacts to Known Archeological Resources or Would Occur in Previously Undisturbed Areas. The entirety of ES 7 includes the proposed Phase Ill alignment and an extension of pipeline to serve the proposed Quarry Creek Development. The known cultural resource identified in the 2012 Master Plans EIR is in the vicinity of the Quarry Creek portion of ES 7, located in currently undeveloped land. This portion of ES 7 is not included as part of the proposed project. Potential impacts to cultural resources that would result from the portion of ES 7 in undeveloped land will be addressed in the EIR that is being prepared for the Quarry Creek development. The CWRF expansion and new storage tank would make improvements to existing facilities. The site for the new tank has been previously graded. ES 4A would convert an existing pipeline to recycled water use. No ground disturbing activities would be required for construction of the CWRF expansion, construction, or relocation of a new tank, or implementation of ES 4A. Therefore, these projects would not result in any impacts to known or unknown archeological resources. The remainder of the components of the Phase Ill project, including ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, and the portion of ES 7 not within the Quarry Creek Development (a s shown in Figure 8) would involve installation of new pipelines I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-36 ~oplombor 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 121 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL IN ITIAL STUDY located entirely within existing roadways or within the developed South La Costa Golf Course. ES 8 would cross the San Marcos Creek within the South La Costa Golf Course; however, this segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The entire South La tosta Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf course, including the existing creek alignment. The portion of the pipeline that would cross Encinitas Creek would be attached to an existing bridge and would not require ground-disturbing construction within the creek bed . These project components were included in Table 4.4-2 of the Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects Where Impacts are Minimized · I through Implementation of Project Design Features. Archaeological resources within the road1,Nay ROWpreviously disturbed areas would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction. Therefore, the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in additional impacts to archeological resources in these areas. However, due to the high cultural resource sensitivity in the area, unknown cultural resources may still be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities. Implementation of the procedure listed in Appendix A for the accidental discovery of archeological resources would reduce potential impacts to potentially significant unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant. A paleontological resource analysis of the project area was included as part of the 2012 Master Plans EIR (Burwasser 2010; Kennedy and Tan 2002). According to this data, the project area contains one geologic unit of high paleontological sensitivity: the Santiago formation. Excavation and construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project components located within the Santiago formation have the potential to disturb or destroy paleontological resources. The Phase Ill project components proposed in areas with high paleontological sensitivity include ES 1, ES 5, ES 7, and ES 18. However, these project components would be located entirely within existing roadways. Potential paleontological resources in these roadway ROWs have already been disturbed and the Phase Ill project would not result in additional impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources from the Phase Ill project would be less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant. None of the Phase 111 project components are proposed within any formal cemeteries. However, previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area have included human burials, which indicate that there is a potential for human remains to be present in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, the NAHC has indicated that human burials are located within and near the project area and beyond the boundaries of formal cemeteries. Sections 15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines assign special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed under PRC Section 5097.98. The disturbance of any human remains is considered a significant impact, regardless of archaeological significance or association. Any ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Phase Ill project, including trenching and excavation during construction, would have the potential to unintentionally disturb human remains, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of the required protocol in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, to be followed upon unintentional disturbance of human remains, would minimize potential impacts on human remains. California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance is permitted to occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to provide technical assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human remains. Compliance with California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 would reduce any potential impacts to human remains from the Phase Ill project to a level below significance and no further mitigation would be required. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-37 ~eptombor 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 122 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY the high seismic potential of the entire county, groundshaking risks cannot be entirely eliminated. However, the CMWD would be required to implement the relevant requirements of the 2010 California Building Code (as updated or amended) and California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, which would reduce groundshaking impacts to the extent feasible. Additionally, as described in the construction measures listed in Appendix A, a site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each Phase Ill project component that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil. CMWD would be required to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address potential site-specific hazards. Therefore, potential impacts related to groundshaking would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv. Landslides? Less than significant. Liquefaction is not known to have occurred historically in San Diego County. However, the potential exists for liquefaction to occur in areas with loose sandy soils combined with a shallow groundwater table, which typically are located in alluvial river valleys/basins and floodplains (County 2009). Additionally, certain lands within the vicinity of the project components are subject to landslides. Generally, landslide potential is considered high for areas that contain slopes of 15 percent or greater. Figure 4.6-2,.Geohazards, of the 2012 Master Plans EIR depicts the CIP projects that generally have a high potential for liquefaction and landslides based on regional soil data. ES 4A is located in a potential landslide hazard area; however, this project component would convert an existing potable water pipeline to recycled water use. No new risk of damage or facility failure would result from this project component because no construction or ground disturbance would occur, and no new facilities would be constructed. ES 1, ES 5, and ES 7 are also located in areas of high landslide risk. ES 2 and ES 9 are located in liquefaction hazard areas. ES 8 and ES 18 would potentially be exposed to landslide and liquefaction hazards, depending on the location of the segment. However, as listed in Appendix A, a site specific geotechnical investigation would be completed during the engineering and design of each project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil. CMWD would be required to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address potential site-specific hazards related to liquefaction and landslides. Therefore, potential impacts related to liquefaction and landslides would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant. The CWRF expansion, storage tank construction or relocation, and ES 4A would not result in any earth-disturbing activities that would result in the exposure of soils. However, earth-disturbing activities such as excavation and soil stockpiling associated with the construction of the remaining Phase Ill project components would expose soils that could be s.ubject to erosion during rain and wind events. However, as discussed in below in Section 9a), construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or General Linear Utility Permit requirements to protect water quality during construction, particularly from eroded sediment. In addition, construction would be subject to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, or Vista, depending on project location. Compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A, including the General Linear Utility Permit, and/or local development standards, including the preparation of a SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, would reduce the potential increase in erosion associated with construction activities to a less than significant level. 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? Less than significant. See Section 6a). A site-specific geotechnical investigation would be completed during the engineering and design of each project in a potential hazard area (ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18) that makes recommendations for any site-specific hazards. Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable soil would be Jess than significant. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-39 ~optombor 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 124 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY -d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code {1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than significant. Figure 4.6-2, Geohazards, of the 2012 Master Plans EIR depicts the CIP projects that generally have a high potential for expansive soils based on regional soil data. None of the Phase Ill project sites are located in an area with high potential for expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The Phase Ill project proposes new infrastructure and would not involve the use of or need for septic tanks or and other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not affect existing sewer service. No impact would occur. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Explanation: Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact D D D D D D a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than significant. California Health and Safety Code Section 38SOS(g) defines GHGs to include the following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As individual GHGs have varying heat-trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e) units for comparison. The C02e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. The most common GHGs related to the project are CO2 (C02e = 1), CH4 (C02e = 21), and N20 (C02e = 310). The County of San Diego published its most recent Draft Guidelines for Determining Significance for Climate Change on June 20, 2012. The guidelines are based on regional data, including the incorporated cities such as El Cajon, and may be used by lead agencies in the region other than the County of San Diego. The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure that new development achieves its fair share of emissions reductions needed to meet the statewide Assembly Bill (AB) 32 mandate. The County's guidelines establish a screening level threshold of 2,500 MT C02e per year. Therefore, a project that emits more than 2,500 MT C02e annually during construction or operation would result in a potentially significant cumulative impact. The 2012 Master Plans EIR quantified the GHG emissions that would result from construction and operation of all of the CIP Projects proposed in the Master Plans, including the Phase Ill project. Construction of the project would result in temporary emissions of GHG from the operation of construction equipment and from worker and building supply vendor vehicles. Equipment that is associated with construction activity includes dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery, and haul trucks. The 2012 Master Plans EIR determined that the worst-case annual construction scenario, which included the Phase Ill project, would result in annual GHG emissions of 959 MT C02e. The worst-case construction scenario is described in greater detail in Section 2b). Construction of the Phase I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-40 September 19. 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 125 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Ill project would be less than the overall total, and as a result would not generate significant GHG emissions during construction. Operational GHG emissions from the Phase Ill project would include indirect emissions from electricity usage and direct emissions from mobile sources. The Phase Ill project would not result in an increase in demand for natural gas, water, or solid waste disposal services; therefore, no increase in GHG emissions would occur from these sources. Pipeline and storage projects, once constructed, would not require the use of electricity, emergency generators, or any other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment. However, the increase in the capacity of the CWRF would result in an increase in electricity demand. Existing electricity use at the CWRF is 1.2 million kWh (City of Carlsbad 2011). The CWRF expansion would double the capacity of the existing CWRF; therefore, it was assumed to result in a doubling of electricity demand. Therefore, the increase in capacity at the CWRF would result in a net increase in demand of 1.2 million kWh, which would result in estimated GHG emissions of 396 MT C02e (California Climate Action Registry 2009). The proposed Phase Ill project components are underground pipelines, a storage tank, and an improvement to the existing CWRF facility. Following construction, the storage tank and underground pipelines would be passive and would not require regular maintenance. Occasional vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to existing pipelines. No new vehicle trips would be required by the CWRF for maintenance or operation of the expansion. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips. In the analysis in the 2012 Master Plans EIR, it was conservatively assumed that a net increase of one maintenance trip per day would be required, for a total increase of 5 miles based on the distance from the City of Carlsbad/CMWD operations buildings on Faraday Avenue to the farthest portion of CIP Project ES 4C. All of the project components are closer to the CMWD building than CIP Project ES 4C; therefore, annual GHG emissions would be less than the 1 MT C02e calculated for buildout of the Master Plans. The total annual GHG emissions from construction of the CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Master Plans EIR (including the Phase Ill project) is 959 MT C02e. Operation of the Phase Ill project by itself is estimated to result in operational GHG emissions of less than 397 MT C02e per year. Neither the construction nor operation of the Phase Ill project individually would exceed the significance threshold of 2,500 MT C02e per year. Even if construction and operational emissions would occur simultaneously (totaling 1,356 MT C02e), annual GHG emissions would not exceed the 2,500 MT C02e threshold. Therefore, the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than significant. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established statutory limits on GHG emissions in California. Under AB 32, the CARS is responsible for adopting rules and regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines the state's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit and future emissions reduction targets established by Executive Order S-3-05. The County guidelines were established for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs to meet the state requirements of AB 32. The guidelines are based on regional data, including the incorporated cities and may be used by lead agencies in the region other than the County of San Diego. The guidelines were developed in support of the County's Climate Action Plan that was approved in June 2012, and is compliant with AB 32. GHG emissions that are below the County's regional annual emissions threshold would be considered consistent with AB 32 . As discussed in Section 7 a), neither construction-related nor operational GHG emissions would exceed the regional significance threshold established by the County of San Diego. Therefore, the project would not conflict with guidelines established for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs to meet the state requirements of AB 32. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-41 ~eptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 126 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Explanation: Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D D Less Than Significant With Mitigation D D D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D No Impact D D D D D a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant. Numerous federal and state regulations require strict adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, disposal and accidental release of hazardous materials. Regulations associated with transporting, using or disposing of hazardous materials include the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, which provides the 'cradle to grave' regulation of hazardous wastes; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act, which requires any infrastructure at the state and local levels to plan for chemical emergencies; the International Fire Code, which regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways; California Health and Safety Code, which provides threshold quantities for regulated hazardous substances and the establishment of Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans; California Code or Regulations Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste; California Code or Regulations Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous solid wastes; SB 1889, which defines regulated substances as chemicals that pose a threat to public health and safety or I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-42 ~eplombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 127 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive; and the Consolidated Fire Code, which includes permit requirements for the installation, alteration, or repair of new and existing fire protection systems, and penalties for violations of the code. Construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project would have the potential to generate small amounts of hazardous materials and wastes. Petroleum products such as fuels and oils would be the predominant materials used during construction due to operation of motorized construction equipment and vehicles. The main hazardous wastes produced by construction activity would be waste oil and oil-saturated materials from construction equipment. Hazardous materials and waste would be managed and used in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local Jaws and regulations, described above. There would be no routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Minimal amounts of hazardous materials may be transported to and from a site during construction, but the transport of such materials would be temporary and subject to applicable regulations, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous wastes generated from construction activities would be Jess than significant. Following construction, the proposed pipelines and storage tank would be passive and would not require the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the CWRF currently uses chemicals and other hazardous materials in its treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additional use of these materials, including chlorine. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) has already been prepared for the CWRF in accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Hazardous Materials Division requirements. The HMBP includes an inventory of all hazardous materials and a description of each material's properties, identification of the site operator, a map identifying the location of the hazardous materials, emergency response procedures for major and minor emergencies, an emergency response plan, and a description of required employee training. Implementation of the CWRF expansion would result in a slight increase in the use of hazardous materials already used at the CWRF due to an increase in the capacity of the treatment facility. Hazards related to these materials could occur during storage, transportation, use, disposal, or accidental release. The proposed new CWRF treatment facilities would be required to be incorporated into the existing CWRF HMBP. The procedures in the plan comply with U.S. Department of Transportation (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) and CHP regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials along state highways, and are subject to approval by the DEH . Disposal of CWRF equipment, such as filters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local Jaws and regulations. Therefore, routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials at the CWRF would be managed and used as required by all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, such as Resources Conservation and Recovery Act Title 22, the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and Hazardous Material Business Plans. Impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials generated from operational activities would be less than significant. 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? Less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport and use of fuels, oil, and other fluids associated with construction equipment. Leaks or spills may occur during construction, potentially releasing hydrocarbons to the environment; however, compliance with applicable California Department of Toxic Substances Control regulations for the handling of hazardous materials and spill cleanup procedures would prevent potentially significant impacts. Operation of the pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment. Operation of the CWRF expansion would be subject to the HMBP prepared for the CWRF which has been approved by the DEH. This plan establishes procedures to minimize the potential for upsets or accidents to occur in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations, and establishes emergency procedures should an accident occur. Therefore, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-43 ~optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 128 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Operation of the storage tank and pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the CWRF. No impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than significant with mitigation. A record search of the areas in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project components was conducted by Atkins in February 2012 of federal, state, and local databases of sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials, or sites for which a hazardous materials release or incident has occurred. The records search included the Geo Tracker database, the EnviroStor database, and the Site Assessment and Mitigation Program. The Geo Tracker database is a geographic information system that provides on line access to environmental data including underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies. The EnviroStor database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund Sites (National Priorities List); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. The Site Assessment and Mitigation Program lists sites in San Diego County that require permitting for handling hazardous materials. The Geo Tracker Database identified approximately 50 recorded sites along the Phase Ill project alignments and one near the CWRF. Sites were identified along every Phase Ill alignment except ES 7. Site records included leaking underground storage tanks, land disposal sites, and other cleanup sites. Ten out of the 50 recorded sites are open cases; the remainder of the cases have been closed. Open cases involving leaking underground storage tank and cleanup sites are concentrated near McClellan-Palomar Airport and gas stations along El Camino Real. One closed underground storage tank case is located at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, adjacent to the CWRF. The EnviroStor database identified one permitted hazardous materials facility (Cabrillo Power Plant) and one cleanup site along ES 2, one permitted facility (Vista Industrial Products) and one school site investigation along ES 4A, and one site evaluation of a dry cleaning facility along ES 9. The Site Assessment and Mitigation Program lists 783 permitted hazardous materials establishments in Carlsbad. None of identified sites are located within a roadway ROW; however, the potential exists for the soil underlying the Phase Ill project sites to have been previously contaminated by hazardous substances as a result of former uses of the sites surrounding the alignment or leaks from unidentified underground storage tanks. Typical pathways of exposure to pollutants from existing contamination include inhalation of volatiles and fugitive particulates, and dermal absorption. Potential exposure to contaminants could occur to construction workers during grading, trenching, excavation and site development activities that would expose potentially contaminated soil. ES 4A, construction or relocation of the storage tank, and the CWRF expansion do not require any ground-disturbing construction activities that would potentially expose workers to contaminated soil. ES 7 is proposed in a residential neighborhood, which typically does not include permitted hazardous materials establishments, and no hazardous materials sites were identified along this alignment. Therefore, construction of ES 4A, ES 7, storage tank, and the CWRF expansion would not result in a significant impact related to listed hazardous materials sites during construction. However, construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potential to encounter contaminated soil during construction activities and expose construction workers to a significant hazard. Impacts during construction would be potentially significant. However, implementation of mitigation measures Haz-1 and Haz-2 would reduce potential hazards related to listed hazardous materials sites to a less than significant level. None of the Phase Ill project components propose a facility for human habitation that would potentially result in long-term exposure to risks from an existing hazardous materials site. The CWRF expansion makes interior improvements to an existing building at the CWRF. Therefore, workers at the CWRF would not be exposed to any additional risk from hazardous sites as a result of the project. Additionally, the site located adjacent to the CWRF at the EWPCF (Case No. T0607300568) is closed and no future action required. Therefore, potential impacts during operation would be less than significant. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-44 September 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 129 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopte.d, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. ES 1 would be located within the Palomar-McClellan Airport Influence Area and Flight Activity Zone. The proposed pipeline would be located underground and does not involve any construction or long-term operational features that would result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No structures for human occupancy are proposed in the Flight Activity Zone. Activities at Palomar-McClellan Airport would be unaffected by the proposed project. Additionally, none of the proposed Phase Ill project components are within the Airport Influence Area for Oceanside Municipal Airport. No impact would occur. f) 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? No Impact. No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project. No impact would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant. Interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan would result in an adverse physical effect to people or the environment by potentially increasing the loss of life and property in the event of a disaster. The CWRF expansion, construction or relocation of the storage tank, and ES 4A would make improvements to existing facilities and would not result in any impact to emergency response or evacuation plans during construction or operation. Following construction, the proposed pipelines in ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would be located underground. No impact to emergency response or evacuation plans would occur_. However, construction activities associated with these pipelines, particularly excavation and trenching activities associated with pipeline extensions or other improvements that are within roadway ROW, may result in temporary, construction-related lane and road closures or detours. Temporary roadway closures could potentially interfere with emergency plans and procedures if appropriate authorities are not properly notified, or multiple projects are constructed during the same time and multiple roadways used for emergency routes are concurrently blocked. However, the CMWD has committed to preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan, as described in the list of construction measures in Appendix A. With implementation of a traffic control plan, the Phase Ill project would not result in a potentially significant impact associated with impairment or interference with emergency response or evacuation plans. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than significant. Construction activities may result in a potential fire risk due to the presence of fuel-burning construction equipment. The Phase Ill project components are located entirely within existing facilities or existing roadway ROW in developed areas. However, some construction would occur adjacent to undeveloped areas. The CMWD has committed to construction measures, listed in Appendix A to reduce fire risk during construction. Preparation of a brush management plan and dissemination of fire safety information to construction crews would ensure that construction impacts would not be significant. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites (Section 8d) to a less than significant level. Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-45 ~optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 130 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Haz-2 Construction Worker Health and Safety Work Plan. Prior to construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, or ES 18, CMWD shall have a project-specific health and safety work plan prepared and distributed to the construction workers to address the potential exposure to hazardous materials associated with working with or near contaminated soil. This work plan shall comply with all County of San Diego DEH work plan requirements including Community Health and Safety Planning to address physical hazards, site security, management of soil and water, and monitoring equipment. A description of engineering controls and measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site workers, public and the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the construction area shall be provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The engineering controls and measures to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1) An exclusion zone and support zone shall be established prior to start and during excavation activities. No unauthorized personnel shall be allowed in these zones. Personnel authorized to work in these zones shall have the required training and qualifications including the California Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) HAZWOPER training. 2) Written notifications shall be posted on the perimeter fencing in advance of start of excavation to notify the general public and hotel staff/operators of the nature and duration of work activities. The postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers. 3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones. 4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks or respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek0 protective clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or ear muffs. 5) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting the exclusion zone. 6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or Visqueen ™, if stored on site, to prevent or reduce off-gassing into the atmosphere and to protect the stockpile from erosion due to storm runoff. If on-site temporary storage becomes necessary, the stockpiles shall be placed downwind downstream of any sensitive receptors in the area. 7) All work shall stop if ambient air concentrations exceed acceptable thresholds as approved by the San Diego County DEH, and excavation shall be backfilled with inert soil or other material until concentration drop back to normal. 8) Exposure to dust and potential inhalation hazards shall be controlled by lightly spraying the excavated materials with clean water as they are stockpiled on site or as they are transferred to trucks for shipment offsite. A dust monitor shall be used on site to measure airborne dust during activities that are expected to generate dust. If dust levels exceed permissible exposure levels as set by OSHA standards, additional measures for dust control such as the use of industrial non-toxic dust suppressants shall be implemented. 9) Runoff around the excavation site shall be controlled by placing fiber rolls or other similar types of erosion and runoff control means to direct surface runoff and to protect the nearby downstream storm drains. 10) Vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall be directed away from the construction zone prior to and during excavation and follow-on activities in accordance with a traffic plan approved by the City of San Diego or City of Oceanside, as applicable, and in coordination with CMWD. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-46 ~optomber 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 131 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge D D D requirements? 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., the production rate D D D of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, induding through the alteration of the course of a D D D stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 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 D D D amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage D D ~ D systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D ~ D g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood D D D ~ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which D D D ~ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a D D D ~ result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D D ~ Explanation: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant. The Phase Ill project would have the potential to contribute to a violation of water quality standards or the degradation of surface water quality during construction. Construction of the Phase Ill project could result in polluted runoff through activities such as excavation, stockpiling of soils and materials, and concrete pouring. This runoff would have short-term adverse impacts on surface water quality. Typically, construction activities involve various types of equipment such as dozers, scrapers, graders, loaders, compactors, dump trucks, water trucks, and concrete mixers. Additionally, soils are typically stockpiled outdoors, in addition to other materials that would be used later during construction. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-47 :;epiember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 132 of 223 ENVIRO NMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Pollutants associated with these construction activities that would substantially degrade water quality include soils, debris, other materials generated during demolition and clearing, fuels and other fluids associated with the equipment used for construction, paints,-other hazardous materials, concrete slurries, and asphalt materials. ES 4A would not make improvements to an existing pipeline and would not require any heavy construction equipment or ground-disturbing activities. The CWRF expansion and construction or relocation of the storage tank would make improvements to existing facilities on previously graded sites. No ground-disturbing acidities would be required and potential pollutants from construction equipment would be contained within the CWRF or its existing drainage system. Therefore, construction of these project components would not result in significant water quality impact during construction. Pollutants associated with construction activities for ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would potentially degrade water quality if they are washed by storm water or non-storm water into surface waters. Sediment is often the most common pollutant associated with construction sites because of the associated earth-moving activities and areas of exposed soil. Sediment that is washed off site can result in turbidity in surface waters, which can impact aquatic species. In addition, when sediment is deposited into receiving water it can smother organisms, alter the substrate and habitat, and alter the drainage course. Hydrocarbons such as fuels, asphalt materials, oils, and hazardous materials such as paints and concrete slurries discharged from construction sites could also impact aquatic plants and animals downstream. Debris and trash could be washed into existing storm drainage channels to downstream surface waters and could impact wildlife as well as aesthetic value. The potential increase in pollutants associated with construction activities could result in a violation in water quality standards or a substantial degradation of water quality. However, construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or General Linear Utility Permit (for expansion segments that would disturb less than one acre) requirements, in addition to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad or Oceanside, depending on project location. The City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards Manual and the Oceanside Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance outline specific requirements to ensure compliance with all applicable storm water ordinances. Every construction activity within Carlsbad that has the potential to negatively affect water quality must prepare a construction SWPPP. A SWPPP provides for temporary measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction as required by the most recent statewide permit regulating construction activities. The SWPPP requirements in the Storm Water Standards Manual ensure compliance with the Carlsbad Storm Water Ordinance. Additionally, construction activities must comply with all construction BMPs required pursuant to Title 15 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Grading and Drainage, including minimizing and stabilizing disturbed areas, protecting slopes and channels, controlling the site perimeter, and controlling internal erosion. If dewatering is required for any Phase Ill project, dewatering and discharge activities would be subject to water quality guidelines outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System administered by the San Diego RWQCB. Additionally, the CMWD has committed to the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential water quality impacts, including a spill contingency plan and requirements for groundwater disposal, if encountered. Compliance with the proposed project features and the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A would reduce the potential increase in pollutants associated with construction activities to a less than significant level. Following construction, the Phase Ill project would not result in any new impervious surfaces and does not include any components that would generate potential water quality pollutants. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not increase runoff and would not result in a violation of waste discharge requirements from operation. Impacts would be less than significant. 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., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less than significant. None of the Phase Ill project components would affect groundwater recharge because they would not involve the extraction or use of groundwater supplies. Further, each project component would comply I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-48 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 133 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY with all applicable construction storm water permits, which require the implementation of construction and post construction BMPs, as described above in Section 9a). Compliance with the construction permits would reduce the potential for the project to substantially interfere with groundwater quality to a less than significant level. The construction and operation of the proposed Phase Ill project would not use groundwater and would not directly affect groundwater levels. Dewatering, a method which pumps groundwater into either a surface water body or directly into a stormwater drainage system, may be required to prepare sites for placement of proposed pipelines and other underground facilities; however, the potential impact to groundwater would be temporary and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Further, the Phase Ill project would only result in an increase in impervious surfaces at the new storage tank site and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Phase Ill project. 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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Less than significant. Land-disturbing construction activities for proposed Phase Ill project, such as grading, trenching, or excavation, have the potential to result in localized temporary or permanent alteration of drainage patterns. This can lead to deposition of pollutants and sediment to the watershed outlets and an increase in polluted runoff to surface receiving bodies. However, as discussed in Section 9a), project design features and existing state and local regulations are in place to ensure that impacts to water quality from construction activities would not occur, including increases in sediment runoff. These regulations require the implementation of BMPs during construction that minimize disturbance, protect slopes and reduce erosion. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce the potential increase in polluted runoff, erosion and siltation associated with construction to a less than significant level. Upon completion of construction, no increase in impervious surfaces would occur as a result of the Phase Ill project. Trenched areas would be restored to their previous condition and no alteration of the drainage pattern would occur. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the project would not substantially alter drainage patterns and would not increase erosion and siltation. 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 runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site? Less than significant. Land-disturbing construction activities, such as grading and excavation, could result in the localized alteration of drainage patterns. Temporary ponding and/or flooding could result from temporary alterations of the drainage system that reduce its capacity to carry runoff. However, construction of the Phase Ill project would be required to comply with existing regulations that reduce the likelihood of alterations in drainage to result in flooding impacts, such as those listed above in Section 9a). Through compliance with existing local and state regulations, including implementation of construction BMPs, construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project would not increase the rate and amount of surface runoff to streams and rivers in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than significant. Drainage facilities including storm drains, culverts, inlets, channels, curbs, roads, or other such structures are designed to prevent flooding by collecting storm water runoff and directing flows to either the natural drainage course and/or away from development. If drainage facilities are not adequately designed, built, or properly maintained, the capacity of the existing facilities can be exceeded resulting in flooding and increased sources of polluted runoff. As discussed in Section 9d), the Phase Ill project would have the potential to result in alterations of drainage patterns during construction. This alteration in drainage patterns could exceed the capacity of existing or planned on-site and off-site storm water drainage systems. Storm water discharges are generated by precipitation and runoff from land, structures, and other surfaces. Substantial increased runoff volumes would have the potential to overload existing drainage facilities and increase flows and velocity which could result in flooding, increased erosion, and impacts to downstream receiving waters I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-49 £eptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 134 of 223 ENVIR ONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY and habitat integrity. However, construction of the Phase Ill project would be required to comply with state and local stormwater regulations, including construction BMPs, which reduce the likelihood of runoff exceeding the capacity of an existing storm water drainage system. Through compliance with the existing regulations, the Phase Ill project would not increase runoff in volumes that would exceed pre-project site conditions and would not exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than significant. As discussed in Section 9 a), compliance with applicable state and local regulations would prevent potentially significant impacts to water quality. Operation of the proposed pipelines would be entirely underground and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The storage tank would be a passive facility on an existing storage tank site and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The CWRF expansion makes improvements to an existing facility and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. Therefore, the proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No impact. The Phase Ill project does not include the provision of any housing; therefore, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FIRM or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. The Phase Ill project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities. Approximately 20 feet of the ES 8 pipeline alignment would be exposed over Encinitas Creek within the South La Costa Golf Course; however, the 6 inch pipeline would be attached to the side of an existing bridge and would not result in any additional interference with 100-year flows. Therefore, the project would not place structures which · would impede or redirect flow within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur. i) 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? No impact. The dam inundation area potentially affecting the Phase Ill project surrounds the Maerkle Dam, in close proximity to ES 8. However, ES 8 proposed an underground pipeline that would not be affected by dam inundation. None of the Phase Ill project components involve housing or structures for human occupancy. Therefore, a dam inundation event would not result in injury or death related to proposed Phase Ill project. No impact would occur. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No impact. A seiche is a standing wave in a completely or partially enclosed body of water. Although Maerkle Reservoir is located near ES 8, this water body is not large enough to be subject to seiches. Some overtopping of the reservoirs may occur; however, ES 8 proposesbahly an underground pipeline. The Phase Ill project does not propose any structures that would be at risk from seiches. A tsunami is a very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. Tsunamis can cause flooding to coastlines and inland areas less than 50 feet above sea level and within one mile of the shoreline. The CWRF expansion, ES 2, and ES 9 would be located within one mile of the coastline. However, these project components propose improvements to an existing facility and underground pipelines. The Phase Ill project would not result in new facilities at risk for tsunami hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to a significant risk from a tsunami. Debris flows, also known as mudflows, are shallow water-saturated landslides that travel rapidly down slopes carrying rocks, brush, and other debris. The project area contains many areas with steep slopes, or mountainous areas, that would potentially be subject to mudflows in the event of large amounts or precipitation. However, the I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-50 ~optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 135 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Phase Ill project does not propose housing or buildings for human occupancy; therefore, life loss would not occur in the event of a mudflow. No new structures are proposed that would have the potential to be at risk of structure loss. Therefore, no impact related to mudflows would occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 10. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? D D D b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general pla·n, specific plan, D D D local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or D D D natural communities conservation plan? Explanation: a) Physically divide an established community? Less than significant. The Phase Ill project proposes underground facilities and improvements on CMWD property containing existing facilities. The Phase Ill project would not result in any new physical barriers following construction. As discussed in Section 8g), the CMWD would implement traffic control plans during construction so that roadways affected by construction would continue to be usable by vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established neighborhood during construction or operation. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdi'ction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant. Construction of the Phase Ill project would be located within existing or planned roads, an existing tank site, and the existing CWRF. Construction would result potential incompatibilities with surrounding land uses if it would require a roadway closure. However, as discussed in Section 8g), a traffic control plan would be implemented during construction of any Phase Ill project that would interfere with traffic flow. Construction activities would also have the potential to generate noise levels that are incompatible with surrounding land uses. As discussed in Section 12d), construction activities would comply with all restrictions on construction hours established in the Carlsbad and Oceanside noise ordinances so that construction would not disturb sleep. Construction activities would also include best management practices to minimize noise to daytime noise sensitive land uses. Therefore, construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in any significant land use conflicts or incompatibilities. The Phase Ill project proposes below-ground pipelines and upgrades to and existing tank site and the existing CWRF and would not have local land use effects after installation. The CWRF expansion would not result in any change in land use and would not result in any land use conflicts or incompatibilities. As discussed in Section 13, the Phase Ill project components were designed to meet present and future recycled water needs for projected growth within the areas served by the CMWD, consistent with the 2012 RWMP growth projections. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not induce any unplanned growth. The 2012 RWMP is intended to implement the recycled water infrastructure necessary to meet the land use goals established in the Carlsbad General Plan. The Phase Ill project would also potentially require discretionary permits from the jurisdiction in which the project is located, whether it be Carlsbad or Oceanside. Future projects would be required to comply with all applicable land use regulations in order to obtain project approval and would be further evaluated at the time of project design and review. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-51 30ptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 136 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not conflict with the Carlsbad General Plans or other land use regulations and ordinances. The Coastal Zone of Carlsbad is located within areas that are west of El Camino Real. The CWRF expansion, ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 are located in this area. These project components would have the potential to affect the Coastal Zone, and some construction activities would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Since Carlsbad has an approved Local Coastal Program as of 1996, the City acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects located within its coastal zone, with a few exceptions. There are areas of "deferred certification" where the state retains permitting authority. For example, Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies outside of Carlsbad's permitting authority, and the project in its vicinity (ES 2) would require a CDP from the California Coastal Commission. All projects in the Carlsbad coastal zone would require review for consistency with the Local Coastal Program and California Coast Act prior to issuance of a CDP. The future required review and issuance of CDPs would ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the Local Coastal Program; individual components would require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the California Coast Act. The Phase Ill project would not conflict with any existing general plan, coastal plan or any other land use plan or policy, or result in any land use incompatibilities. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. As evaluated above in Section 4 f), several project components could result in potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP. However, potential impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad HMP requirements. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would therefore not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 11. Mineral Resources Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of D D D the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general D D D plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Explanation: a} Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. No mineral resources are actively being extracted and utilized as exploitable natural resources within Carlsbad. The Phase Ill project component areas are designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3, which indicated that mineral resources are potentially present. Additional geotechnical investigations would be required to determine whether these areas contain resources of value, or are located in areas that do not contain mineral resources (Dudek 2003, City of Vista 2011, and City of Oceanside 2002). Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-52 geptember 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 137 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The Phase Ill project would be constructed within roadway ROW or at existing facilities. Additionally, the proposed Phase Ill project consists of public utilities infrastructure that would not be considered incompatible land uses that would preclude areas surrounding the project components sites from being used for mineral extraction. No impact would occur. 12. Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? 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? Explanation: Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than significant. Construction of the project would potentially result in temporary increases in noise levels from the operation of construction equipment. Construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project would involve the use of heavy equipment during trenching and extraction, and installation of some equipment, such as the CWRF expansion equipment. Equipment that would be associated with construction of the proposed Phase Ill project includes dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, cranes, and delivery trucks. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity, type of construction equipment, duration of the construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening topography. Sound levels of typical construction equipment range from 60 dBA to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source (FHWA 2008). The CMWD has committed to the measures list in Appendix A during construction of Phase Ill project to minimize noise effects to surrounding neighborhoods, including distancing noise sources from residences, compliance with applicable noise ordinances, and providing notice of construction to residents and property owners. The City of Carlsbad prohibits construction after sunset on any day, and before 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and before 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day on Sunday or holidays. In Oceanside, operation I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-53 ~optomber 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 138 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY of any pneumatic or air hammer, pile driver, steam shovel, derrick, steam, or electric hoist, or other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise, is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. As discussed above, the CMWD.would comply with all limits on construction hours established in the cities' noise ordinances. The City of Oceanside includes additional requirements for construction noise. In Oceanside, construction is required to comply with the exterior noise standards in Table 4 unless the City Manager determines that construction furthers the public interest and exempts construction from this required. Table4 City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards Applicable Limit Zone (decibels) 111 Time Period Residential Estate, Single-Family Residential, Medium Density 50 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. Residential, Agricultural, Open Space 45 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. High Density, Residential Tourist 55 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 50 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Commercial 65 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 60 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Industrial 70 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 65 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Downtown 65 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 55 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 111 One-hour average sound level. Source: City of Oceanside Municipal Code, Section 38.12 A portion of ES 5 is located in Oceanside. ES 5 would install a new pipeline to increase the availability of recycled water. The Oceanside City Management would determine if this project would further public interest and would be exempted from the hourly noise level limits. Regardless, the project design features above would minimize construction noise. Additionally, the proposed Phase Ill project would not be constructed all at once and not all equipment would be operating at the same time. Pipeline projects would be constructed in a linear fashion and would only result in construction noise at a particular receptor for a short time. Therefore, implementation of the Phase Ill project would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the Carlsbad or Oceanside noise ordinances during construction. Following construction, the potential transportation noise sources for the Phase Ill project would be primarily associated with vehicular trips by employees. However, as addressed in Section 2, operation of the Phase Ill project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The Phase Ill project would make improvements to the existing CWRF or are passive pipeline and storage projects that would not increase the number of maintenance trips typically required. Additionally, maintenance trips would be to facilities throughout the project areas and would not be concentrated on a specific roadway. Due to the minimal number and geographic distribution of vehicular trips associated with the maintenance of the Phase Ill project, transportation noise increases would be negligible. Therefore, the project would not result in significant permanent increases in ambient noise associated with transportation noise sources. Following construction, the Phase Ill pipeline projects and storage tank would be passive and would not result in permanent increases in the ambient noise environment. No operational noise impact would occur. The CWRF expansion would increase the capacity of the CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The CWRF currently generates noise from operation of pumps. Noise generating equipment would be located within a concrete enclosure to attenuate noise. Additionally, the CMWD has committed to the construction measures listed in Appendix A, including ensuring that operating equipment will be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations. Therefore, the increase in capacity at the CWRF would not permanently increase the ambient noise level surrounding the CWRF. Occasional maintenance and emergency I ATKI NS· CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-54 £eptember l \l, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 139 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY repair activities on any Phase Ill project would have the potential to generate some additional noise. However, these activities are sporadic in nature and do not occur at the same location for long periods of time. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not result in a significant impact related to substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant. Vibration sources associated with implementation of the Phase Ill would be generated primarily from project construction. Once installed, the Phase Ill project facilities include passive pipelines and treatment facilities that do not generate substantial levels of vibration. Construction-related vibration would have the potential to impact nearby structures and vibration-sensitive equipment and operations. The level of vibration generated from other construction activities would depend on the type of soils and the energy-generating capability of the construction equipment. According to Caltrans typical construction activities and equipment, such as dozers, earthmovers, and trucks have not exceeded 0.10 in/sec peak particle velocity at 10 feet. Vibration criteria for sensitive equipment and operations must be determined based on manufacturer specifications and recommendations by the equipment user. As a guide, major construction activity within 200 feet may be potentially disruptive to sensitive operations (Caltrans 2002). No pile driving or blasting, which would potentially generate higher levels of vibration, would be required for implementation of the Phase Ill project. Phase Ill project components located near existing commercial or industrial development that would require heavy equipment operation that may be potentially disruptive to vibration- sensitive operations include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18. As listed in Appendix A, the CMWD has committed to providing advance notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. The announcement will state specifically where and when construction will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice will be made, either in person or by mail. Therefore, vibration-sensitive land uses within the vibration screening distance for major construction activity would receive adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration. Although vibration may be an annoyance to residents, residential development does not include vibration sensitive equipment and is not considered a day-time vibration-sensitive land use. As discussed under Section 4.11.3.2 (Issue 2), construction activities would take place during the day in accordance with the affected cities' noise ordinances. Therefore, construction of the Phase Ill project would not disturb sleep and would not result in a significant vibration impact to residential development. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant. As discussed in Section 12 a), the proposed Phase Ill project would not generate substantial new operational noise. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise le~els in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant. As discussed in Section 12a), construction of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in noise levels from the operation of construction equipment; however, noise levels would comply with applicable noise ordinances and the CMWD would implement BMPs to minimize noise. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant. 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? I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-55 £optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 140 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Less than significant. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located within Carlsbad. Oceanside Municipal Airport, a public airport, is located in Oceanside. ES 1 would be located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and Flight Activity Zone. However, the Phase Ill project would construct recycled water infrastructure and do not involve any construction or long-term operational features for human occupancy that would result in regular exposure to aircraft noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport or Oceanside Municipal Airport. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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? No impact. There are no private airstrips located in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip. No impact would occur. 13. Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Explanation: Potentially Significant Impact D D D Less Than Less Than Significant With Significant Mitigation Impact D D D D D D a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact No impact. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not directly induce population growth because the project does not propose any new homes or business that would directly attract new growth. Additionally, implementation of the Phase Ill project would not indirectly induce population growth because the plans have been developed to accommodate projected population growth associated demand for recycled water projects in the 2012 RWMP, which was prepared based on the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Growth Database. Therefore, the projected population growth of the region that would be accommodated by the proposed Phase Ill was based upon existing and planned land use data for the project area. The Phase Ill would not result in population growth. No impact would occur. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. No housing units would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. No people would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-56 ~eptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 141 of 223 14. Public Services Potentially Significant Impact ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Less Than Less Than Significant With Significant Mitigation Impact No Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 public services: a) Fire Protection? D D D [gj b) Police Protection? D D D [gj c) Schools? D D D [gj d) Parks? D D D [gj e) Other public facilities? D D D [gj Explanation: a) Fire Protection? No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for fire services. As such, the project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. _Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Police Protection? No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for police services. As such, the project would not require the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Schools? No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for schools. As such, the project would not require the . provision of new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Parks? No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for parks. As such, the project would not require the provision of new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Other Public Facilities? No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for other public services. As such, implementation of the Phase Ill project would not require the provision of new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur. I J\TKI NS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-57 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 142 of 223 15. Recreation a) Would the project 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation: ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact D D D D D D a) Would the project 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? No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to the existing facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The Phase Ill project does not contain any residential uses or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore, implementation of the Phase Ill project would not impact the use of parks or other recreational facilities. There would be no impact to recreational facilities, and no further analysis is required. No impact would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The project includes improvements to the existing facilities and installation of new pipelines. The project does not contain any residential uses or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore, the project would not require the construction or expansion of new recreational facilities. There would be no impact to recreational facilities, and no further analysis is required. No impact would occur. Potentially Less Than Significant Significant With Impact 16. Transportation/Traffic Would the project: a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation D system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards D established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results D in substantial safety risks? I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-58 Mitigation D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D ~eplember 19, 2Q l 2 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 143 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible D D D ~ uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D ~ D f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turr'fouts, D D ~ D bicycle racks)? Explanation: a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would generate construction-related trips from trucks hauling soil and/or debris from the construction sites; trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the construction sites; and construction workers driving to/from the construction sites. These localized increases in construction traffic would be temporary. Construction of the Phase Ill project would not occur all at once, and would take place throughout the study area so that even simultaneous construction projects would not concentrate traffic on the same roadways. Construction traffic would only affect a limited area immediately surrounding the active construction area for a short time during construction of a particular Phase Ill project. Construction projects would not be expected to generate an increase in vehicular trips that would degrade the level of service on surrounding roadways to below an acceptable level. The Phase Ill project would require the installation of new pipelines (ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18) within the public ROW. Staging and storage areas may also be located in a portion of the public ROW. Potential impacts include disruption of traffic from lane closures, detours, increased truck and other construction-related traffic, and disruption of access to local businesses and residences in some cases. These types of impacts may affect local circulation during the short-term course of construction activities. The CMWD will prepare and implement a traffic control plan, as described in the construction measure for Transportation/Traffic listed in Appendix A. Implementation of the traffic control plan would reduce potential impacts during construction to a less than significant level. Permanent traffic associated with operation of the Phase Ill project would occur primarily from vehicular trips by employees. However, operation of the project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The proposed project components are underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities. Following construction, the underground pipelines would be passive and would not require regular maintenance. Occasional vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to existing pipelines. The CWRF and Twin D tank site currently require vehicle trips for maintenance. The CWRF expansion and new or relocated storage tank would not result in new maintenance vehicle trips. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be distributed on roadways throughout project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Implementation of the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in long-term impacts to traffic. The project would not degrade the traffic level of service in the study area. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than significant. Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways that serve the City of Carlsbad, and the portion of the City of Oceanside in the project area, include Interstate 5, State Route 78, El Camino Real, Palomar I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-59 aoptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 144 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road (SAN DAG 2008). Construction of the proposed project would not require construction in any of these CMP roadway ROW, with the exception of El Camino Real. As discussed in Section 16a), the CMWD would implement a traffic control plan to reduce potential impacts to traffic flow during construction to a less than significant level. In addition, operation of the Phase Ill project would generate a negligible increase in vehicles trips in the area. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be distributed on roadways throughout the project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the SAN DAG CMP. Impacts would be less than significant. 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? No impact. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not involve the construction of facilities that would require changes in air traffic patterns from increased traffic levels, location or design . No impact would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No impact. The Phase Ill project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to CMWD properties that are developed with existing facilities. The improvements to existing facilities would not be located adjacent to public roadways. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. No impact would occur. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than significant. Emergency access could be temporarily affected by construction in roadway ROW, which would restrict access the area surrounding the construction sites, but roadways would not be permanently affected by implementation of the Phase Ill project. Lane closures during construction would have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access. However, implementation of the traffic control plan described in Appendix A, including coordination with emergency service providers, would ensure that significant impacts would not occur during construction of any of the proposed Phase Ill project components. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less than significant. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and public transit could be temporarily affected by construction within roadway ROW, but facilities would not be permanently affected by implementation of the Phase Ill project. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not conflict with policies or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise permanently decrease the access, performance, or safety of such facilities. As discussed in Section 16a), lane and sidewalk enclosures during construction would have the potential to decrease the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities. However, implementation of the traffic control plan would ensure that significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycled facilities would not occur during construction of the proposed Phase Ill project. Construction of ES 2 in the railroad ROW would be installed using the trench less jack-and-bore construction method and would not interfere with railroad operation. Therefore, impacts ·to alternative transportation would be less than significant. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-60 £optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 145 of 223 1 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 17. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the D D D applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing D D D facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the D D D construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or D D D expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has D D D adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to D D ~ D accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and D D ~ D regulations related to solid waste? Explanation: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact. Construction of the proposed pipelines would potentially require the dewatering; however, the dewatering effluent would be treated prior to discharge into the City's sanitary sewer system such that the water quality would meet the requirements of the EWPCF and the RWQCB. Operation of the recycled water pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF expansion would not generate wastewater; they would treat and convey treated wastewater as part of the CMWD's recycled water system. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirement of the RWQCB. No impact would occur. 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? No impact. The Phase Ill project would not require potable water or generate wastewater. In addition, there is no new development associated with the proposed project which would increase potable water demand or wastewater generation. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (other than those associated with the proposed Phase Ill project to treat and convey recycled water). No impact would occur. 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? No impact. The proposed project is an expansion of the CWRF, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and underground recycled water pipelines; operation of the pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not discharge into the storm water drainage system or generate surface runoff. In addition, no new impervious surfaces I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-61 geptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 146 of 223 ENVIRONM ENTAL INITIAL STUDY would be constructed, with the exception of the area where the tank is located. The tank site is previously graded and located on an existing storage facility site. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impact would occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would potentially require the use of water for fugitive dust control and trench compaction. Construction-related water usage would be temporary and limited to relatively small amounts; therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing entitlements. Operation of the CWRF expansion and recycled water pipelines would not require use of water. In fact, operation of the Phase Ill project would reduce existing and future potable water demand by expanding the availability of recycled water. Impacts to water supplies would be less than significant. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than significant. Wastewater discharged to the Carlsbad sanitary sewer system is conveyed to the EWPCF. The EWPCF currently treats approximately 24 million gallons per day of wastewater, and has a treatment capacity of 40.51 million gallons per day (Encina Wastewater Authority 2010, 2012). Construction of the proposed project would potentially require the discharge of treated dewatering effluent into the Carlsbad sanitary sewer system; however, wastewater generation from dewatering operations would be temporary and limited to small amounts relative to the capacity of the EWPCF. No wastewater would be generated by operations of the Phase Ill project. Therefore, the EWPCF has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than significant. Construction-related non-recyclable solid waste generation would be temporary and limited to small amounts relative to the landfill's available capacity and permitted daily throughput; therefore, there would be sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Moreover, the long-term operations of proposed pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not generate solid waste that would impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. Operation of the pipelines and storage tank would not generate solid waste. The only waste that would be generated by the CWRF would be disposal of filters and other equipment at the end of its lifespan. Products would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations and would not impact local landfill capacity. Impacts to landfills would be less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than significant. As discussed in Section 8a), all demolition debris and construction waste associated with construction of the Phase Ill project would be properly handled and disposed of, in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations related to solid and hazardous waste. Disposal of CWRF equipment at the end of its lifespan would also be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects 15/MND Page 15-62 £eplember 19. 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 147 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 D D D plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a D D D 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 that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly D D D or indirectly? Explanation: 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Sections 4 a), 4 b), and 4 c) above with regard to biological resources. The proposed project would not result in any direct impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or wetlands. However, construction activities associated with project components ES 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 could result in potential runoff that could affect wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. Mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF would be implemented to ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant indirect impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitat, or wetland. In addition, refer to Sections 5 a) and 5 b), above, with regard to cultural resources. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The Phase Ill project would be located in existing facilities or existing roadways. If unknown archaeological resources are discovered during project construction, the CMWD has committed to a design feature to protect potentially significant resource that would reduce archaeological impacts associated with project construction to below a level of significance. 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.) Less than significant. The cumulative impact analysis determines whether the proposed project's incremental effects would be "cumulatively considerable" when viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, or probable future projects. A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the effect would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. In discussing the cumulative impacts, one question and a possible follow-up question will be answered for each environmental topic: I ATKIN S CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-63 ~eptembor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 148 of 223 ENVIRO NMENTAL INITIAL STUDY 1. Overall, will there be a significant cumulative impact? 2. If it is determined that a significant cumulative impact exists, would the proposed project's contribution to this significant impact be cumulatively considerable? The following discussion of cumulative impacts is organized by each environmental topic addressed in Sections 1- 17 of this Initial Study. The 2012 Master Plans EIR included an analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the Phase Ill project, in combination with the remaining RWMP CIP Projects, the 2012 Sewer and Water Master Plan Projects, and cumulative development in the CMWD services area. This analysis is incorporated by reference, and is summarized below as it pertains to the Phase Ill project. The following environmental topics are not discussed any further in this section because the proposed project would have no direct impact related to these issues: Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. Aesthetics. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to aesthetics is limited to the project site and its immediate surroundings. The proposed project is located in existing roadway ROW and existing facilities in developed areas. However, some areas of open space existing along proposed alignments. Consistent with the Master Plans EIR, as Carlsbad continues to develop, the appearance of the project area will continue to change from undeveloped to a more built-out, urbanized landscape. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to aesthetics is significant. However, following construction, the Phase Ill project would be located underground or within existing CMWD sites containing similar infrastructure. A substantial permanent visual impact would not occur as a result of the Phase Ill project. The Phase Ill project would not result in cumulatively considerable contribution to a potentially significant cumulative aesthetic impact. Air Quality. Refer to Section 3c) for a discussion of cumulative air quality impacts. As discussed in Section 3c), construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant air quality impact related to ozone precursors or particulate matter. Biological Resources. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to biological resources would encompass areas contained within the planning boundaries for the Carlsbad HMP. Development projects within the cumulative setting of the Carlsbad HMP would have the potential to contribute to cumulative direct and indirect impacts to sensitive species and natural communities, including wetlands. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the proposed project (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is significant. Since the adoption of the Carlsbad HMP, project-level and cumulative impacts for development projects within the city have been mitigated to levels of less than significant. One of the many benefits of a regional habitat conservation plan, such as the Carlsbad HMP, is that the cumulative effects of growth are mitigated by establishing a process that preserves the most important biological resources in the region. Since its adoption, implementation of the Carlsbad HMP has resulted in the conservation and preservation of lands supporting the highest quality and value habitat within the city. These preserve lands support special status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and other regionally important biological resources. The preservation of this habitat has allowed for development within the city to occur without contributing substantially to a cumulative impact. As discussed above within Section 4, construction of some project components would have the potential to indirectly impact off-site undeveloped areas potentially supporting special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and habitat supporting wetlands. The magnitude of potential impacts is anticipated to be relatively low due to the small size of the project components and temporary nature of proposed activities. All sensitive habitat areas would be avoided and the project would incorporate adequate setbacks and protection measures to restrict construction activities within disturbed and developed areas. Potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through compliance with the proposed project features, Storm Water General Permit, General Linear Utility Permit, and local development standards, including the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of applicable BMPs. In addition, the CMWD is required to adhere to the provisions of the HPMR Ordinance and Carlsbad HMP protecting sensitive biological resources within the city. Through consistency with the Carlsbad HMP and implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution toward impacts on special status species within the regional cumulative impact area. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-64 September 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 149 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Cultural Resources. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to cultural resources is defined as the areas served by the CMWD, which includes approximately 40-square miles of land with a similar archaeological, ethnohistoric, and historic setting as the individual Phase Ill project sites. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to paleontological resources encompasses the paleontologically sensitive geologic formation within the project area, which is the Santiago Formation. Ground disturbance (e.g., grading, trenching, excavation) associated with implementation of cumulative projects could have significant impacts on archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to cultural resources due to future development within the planning area (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is significant. As discussed in Section 5 above, implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact on historical resources, known archeological resources, or paleontological resources. The CMWD has committed to a protocol for the accidental discovery of unknown archeological resources that, if resources are discovered, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, construction associated with the Phase Ill project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of archaeological or historical resources within the regional cumulative impact area. Geology and Soils. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils is generally site- specific rather than cumulative in nature because each site has unique geologic consideration that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. The structural design for all of the cumulative projects, as well as their associated construction activities, would be required to comply with all applicable public health, safety, and building design codes and regulations to reduce seismic and geologic hazards to an acceptable level. Therefore, because compliance with all applicable codes and regulations is required for all cumulative projects, a significant cumulative impact associated with geology and soils would not occur, and an analysis of the proposed project's incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact is not required. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Refer to Section 7 a) for a discussion of cumulative GHG emissions impacts. Due to the global nature of the assessment of GHG emissions and the effects of climate change, impacts can currently only be analyzed from a cumulative context. Therefore, the analysis provided in Section 7 a) includes both project-specific and cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section 7 a), construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant global climate change impact related to GHG emissions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials is site-specific, and therefore limited to the project site and its immediate surroundings. Due to historical releases in the area, contaminated soils and groundwater are likely to be encountered during construction of the proposed project and nearby cumulative projects, which would potentially expose the public and the environment to hazardous materials. This represents a potentially significant cumulative impact; however, implementation of mitigation measure Haz-1 and Haz-2 would mitigate the Phase Ill project's direct and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with hazardous materials. Hydrology and Water Quality. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality is defined as the project site and the portions of the Carlsbad watershed directly downstream from the Phase Ill project locations. Water Quality. Even with the promulgation of storm water regulations, land disturbance and development activities throughout the Carlsbad watershed continue to contribute to the overall water quality problems observed in runoff flows that discharge into watercourses, lagoons, and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Water bodies in the Carlsbad Watershed have been placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact pertaining to water quality is significant. As discussed above in Section 9, the Phase Ill project would comply with the General Linear Utility Permit and all other applicable storm water requirements, which would ensure that the proposed project would not contribute to the further degradation of water quality. Following construction, the Phase Ill project would not result in new sources of pollutants and would not result in a change to the existing site drainage pattern. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the Phase Ill I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-65 ~optombor 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 150 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant increase in downstream water pollution effects within the regional area. Hydrology. Land disturbance and development activities throughout the local and basins continue to contribute to the overall surface quality and flooding problems in the project area and in the downstream watercourses and lagoons leading to the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to the Carlsbad watershed due to water quality and flooding effects from discharges of storm water associated with alterations of drainage patterns is significant. As discussed in Section 9) above, the Phase Ill project would not result in permanent impacts to existing drainage patterns and would comply with all applicable storm water requirements during construction, which would reduce impacts related to drainage alteration, flooding, and exceedance of capacity of storm water drainage facilities to a level below significance. The Phase Ill would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant regional alteration of drainage patterns. Land Use and Planning. Impacts related to consistency with land use plans and policies, and physical division of an established community, are project-specific and not cumulative in nature. It is anticipated that development of future cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project would undergo CEQA review which would require a consistency analysis with applicable plans and polices. As required by CEQA, cumulative projects would be consistent with the existing adopted plans, or require mitigation measures or design review to ensure consistency As discussed in Section 10) above, implementation of the Phase Ill Project would not result in new land uses that would be incompatible with surrounding land uses and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the Phase Ill project, in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact associated with land use and planning. Noise. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the source increases. The area of cumulative impact would be only those projects within the immediate vicinity of the Phase Ill project. Construction of cumulative development projects is not likely to result a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to the localized nature of noise impacts, and construction projects would not occur simultaneously or at the same location. In addition, construction noise for cumulative projects would be subject to the noise standards within the appropriate jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 10), the Phase Ill project would comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations that limit construction hours, and construction of the Phase Ill project would implement best management practices to minimize construction noise. The Phase Ill project, in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in cumulatively significant increases in temporary noise levels. Potential operational noise impacts from cumulative projects would be required to comply with the noise standards for the jurisdiction that they are located in. As discussed in Section 10a), maintenance for the Phase Ill project may require occasional vehicle trips for maintenance. Due to the minimal number and the geographic distribution of vehicular trips associated with the maintenance of the projects, transportation noise increases, in comparison to existing conditions, would not be perceptible. In addition, operational noise sources from pipelines and the storage tank would be negligible once constructed since these are passive facilities. The CWRF expansion equipment would be enclosed and would not increase noise levels existing noise generated on-site from pumps and other equipment. The Phase Ill, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant increase in permanent ambient noise levels. Transportation/Traffic. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to transportation/traffic is limited to the roadways that would be impacted by the proposed project during construction. It is possible that one or more of the cumulative projects located in close proximity would be constructed concurrently with the proposed project, which could result in a cumulative short-term impact to traffic conditions on these roadways. However, implementation of a traffic control plan, as discussed in Section 16a) would mitigate the project's direct and cumulative traffic impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring that adequate vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle access is maintained during construction. Following construction, operation of the Phase Ill project would result in a negligible amount of new traffic and would not result in a permanent impact to the regional transportation network. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-66 goplombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 151 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Utilities and Service Systems. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems is defined as the City of Carlsbad and the project area. The City and CMWD are responsible for providing adequate utilities and service systems infrastructure to serve future growth that would be accommodated by the City of Carlsbad General Plan, and the portions of adjacent jurisdictions within the project area. If growth would not occur concurrently with. installation of utilities and service system infrastructure to meet demand, a significant cumulative impact would occur. However, the proposed project would expand the CMWD's recycled water availability meet the projected future demand of the currently adopted planning documents, and would also reduce future demand for potable water. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant utilities and service systems impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant with mitigation. The proposed project would result in potentially substantial adverse effects to human beings related to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. However, potential impacts associated with the project (e.g. biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials) would either be less than significant or mitigated to below a level of significance with the implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, Haz-1, and Haz-2. These mitigation measures are described in Sections 1-17 of the Initial Study and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project. Earlier Analyses Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case a discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. This analysis incorporates by reference the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and CMWD Water and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006, EIR 12-01). The Draft EIR addresses the potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Sewer, Water, and Recycled Water Master Plan CIP Projects, including the CWRF expansion, relocation or construction of a new storage tank, and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 18. This Initial Study also uses the information included in the previous Initial Study and Environmental Checklist prepared for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase II Project in December 1999, which included construction of the existing CWRF. Each of these prior certified environmental documents are herein incorporated by reference. All referenced documents are available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. All of the checklist items were addressed above for the Phase Ill project based on the analysis in the 2012 Master Plans EIR. Where appropriate, the EIR analysis was updated to reflect project-specific conditions. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF are based on mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF from the 2012 Master Plans EIR. These measures were slightly modified to be project-specific. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-67 £eptember 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 152 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Supporting Information Sources AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., Conservation Biology Institute, Onaka Planning and Economics, and The Rick Alexander Company. 2003. Final Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. Administered by SAN DAG for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. March. Available at http://www.sandag.org/in dex. asp ?proj ecti d=97 &fuseaction=p rejects.detail Atkins. 2012a. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master Plans Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2012021006. Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. Atkins. 2012b. California Historical Resources Information System Client In-House Records Search, South Coastal Information Center. January 30. Burwasser, G. 2010, Paleontological Resources Evaluation of Vallecitos Water District, San Diego County, California, October 28. California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Report Protocol, Version 3.1. January. California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2010. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program -San Diego County Important Farmland 2008. October. California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2009. Williamson Act Program -San Diego County Williamson Act Lands 2008. April 16. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012a. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), RareFind Version 3.1.0. August 2012 data. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. January. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. January. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012d. Special Animals. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California. January. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2003. The Changing California: Forest and Range 2003 Assessment, Land Cover Map. Accessed January 25, 2011, available at http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/statewide/fvegwhr13_map.pdf California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2009. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. June 11. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (v7-12aug 8-10-12). Data provided by the participants of CNPS. Accessed August 22, 2012, available at http:// en ps. web.apl us. net/ cgi-bin/i nv /inventory.cgi City of Carlsbad. 1996. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2010 Amendments. August 14. On-file at the City of Carlsbad and available at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/LCPA.pdf City of Carlsbad. 1997. Vegetation Community Data Provided by City of Carlsbad GIS. Data available at the City of Carlsbad. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-68 l>optombor 19, 2012 November 14 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 153 of 223 ENVIRO NMENTAL INITIAL STUDY City of Carlsbad. 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates. SCH #2003051014. October. Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. 2004. Final Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Final approval November 2004, including implementing agreement and terms and conditions. Available at http ://www.sandag.org/uploads/pu bl ication id/publication id_ 149 _ 5 79.pdf City of Carlsbad. 2011a . Revised Vegetation Community Data Provided by City of Carlsbad GIS. Data available at the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. 2011b. Carlsbad Municipal Code. October 25. Available at http ://1 i bra ry. mun i code. com/index. as px ?cl i e ntl D=16245&state i d=9&state na m e=Ca I ifo rn i a City of Carlsbad. 2011c. SDGE Energy FY 07 /08 With Facility ID, Cost, and Usage. Provided by Elzbieta Karczewski on December 6, 2011. City of Oceanside. 2002. City of Oceanside General Plan, Environmental Resource Management Element. June. City of Vista. 2011. Vista General Plan 2030 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009121028). December. County of San Diego (County). 2009. San Diego County General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH#2002111067. County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group. 2009. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance -Paleontological Resources. January 15. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. 2012. Draft County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance. June 20. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program -San Diego County Important Farmland 2006. August. Dudek. 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates. SCH #2003051014. October. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. August. Kennedy, M.P., and S.S. Tan . 2002. Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' X 60' Quadrangle, California. California Geologic Survey, Sacramento. Nett Technologies Inc. 2010. Diesel Emissions FAQ: What are diesel emissions? Accessed January 5, 2011, available at http://www.nett.ca/faq/ diesel-1.html San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. April 22, 2009. Accessed November 3, 2010, available at http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/2009-RAQS.pdf San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2011. 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Report for San Diego County. September 28. San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG). 2008. Final 2008 Congestion Management Program Update. November. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2004. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California. October 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/ I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-69 ~eptembor 19. 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 154 of 223 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012c. Species Status Page. Available at http://www.fws.gov/ carlsbad/SpeciesStatuslist/CFWO _Species_ Status_List. htm Biological Resource Database and Literature Review The following provides a summarized list of the primary resources consulted for the preparation of the biological resource analysis. Databases • California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2012a); • California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2012); • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2012a); and • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2012b). Literature Review • City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master Plans Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Atkins 2012a); • Final Carlsbad Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Subarea Plan, herein referred to as the "Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP)", including regional mapping data for vegetation communities and conservation areas (City of Carlsbad 1997, 2004, 2011a); • Final MHCP Plan (AMEC et al. 2003); • CDFG State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFG 2012b); • CDFG Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFG 2012c); • CDFG Special Animals List (CDFG 2012d); and • USFWS Species Lists for San Diego County (USFWS 2012c). List of Mitigating Measures To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the development of the proposed project. Biological Resources Bio-lA Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code, the CMWD shall enforce the following: Prior to construction activities requiring the removal, pruning. or damage of any trees. shrubs. and man- made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) active Rests or aRy tree pruRiRg or removal operatioRs during the prime RestiRg general breeding seasons, that being from March 15 to May 30 January 15 to September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey sh all survey the trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component.of tree removal or pruRiRg. If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction, or if any active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for construction, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor construction activities. No construction activities shall Ra tree pruniRg or remo•,al operatioRs caR occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nestvacated or until the end of the j*iffie-general breeding season, whichever occurs later. m I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-70 ~optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 155 of 223 I Bio-lB Bio-lC Bio-lD Bio-lE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY addition, prior to any tree reR'loval or pruning operations proposed outside of the priR'le nesting season but within the period of January lS to SepteR'lber lS, aA qualified biologist shall confirmL in writingL that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans. Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, .5_2, ES 5, .5_8, and .5_9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project plans that clearly depict the construction work limits, including construction staging and storage areas, in order to determine which specific portion(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space areas during the pre-construction survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of the adjacent open space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the likelihood for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Po/ioptila californica ca/ifornica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the area. The pre- construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior to construction in order to verify the need for additional construction measures proposed within Bio-lC through Bio-lF. Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio- 18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior to and concurrent with construction. Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 through September 15). If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18 that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence. Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-71 l>optombor 19. 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 156 of 223 Bio-lF ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of equipment outside of the project boundaries. Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements. Haz-2 Construction Worker Health and Safety Work Plan. Prior to construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, or ES 18, CMWD shall have a project-specific health and safety work plan prepared and distributed to the construction workers to address the potential exposure to hazardous materials associated with working with or near contaminated soil. This work plan shall comply with all County of San Diego DEH work plan requirements including Community Health and Safety Planning to address physical hazards, site security, management of soil and water, and monitoring equipment. A description of engineering controls and measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site workers, public and the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the construction area shall be provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The engineering controls and measures to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1) An exclusion zone and support zone shall be established prior to start and during excavation activities. No unauthorized personnel shall be allowed in these zones. Personnel authorized to work in these zones shall have the required training and qualifications including OSHA HAZWOPER training. 2) Written notifications shall be posted on the perimeter fencing in advance of start of excavation to notify the general public and hotel staff/operators of the nature and duration of work activities. The postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers. 3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones. 4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks or respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek0 protective clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or ear muffs. 5) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting the exclusion zone. 6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or Visqueen TM ,if stored on site, to prevent or reduce off-gassing into the atmosphere and to protect the stockpile from erosion due to storm runoff. If on-site temporary storage becomes necessary, the stockpiles shall be placed downwind downstream of any sensitive receptors in the area. 7) All work shall stop if ambient air concentrations exceed acceptable thresholds as approved by the San Diego County DEH, and excavation shall be backfilled with inert soil or other material until concentration drop back to normal. I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-72 ~eptember 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 157 of 223 I ATKINS This page intentionally left blank. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-74 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 159 of 223 Appendix A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features Regulatory Compliance Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to various environmental topics, such as the following. Air Quality During construction activities for proposed project components, CMWD would comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. Rule 55 requires the following: 1. No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity in a manner that discharges visible dust emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period; and 2. Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track- out/carry-out shall be minimized by the use of effective trackout/carry-out and erosion control measures listed in Rule 55 that apply to the project or operation. These measures include track-out grates or gravel beds at each egress point; wheel-washing at each egress during muddy conditions; soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; watering for dust control; and using secureq tarps or cargo covering, watering, or treating of transported material for outbound transport trucks. Biological Resources Prior to construction activities for projects located within the boundaries of the city, and where it has been demonstrated that the project could result in impacts to biological resources addressed in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities, including HMP Species, Narrow Endemic Species, HMP Habitats, Existing and Proposed HMP Hardline Preserve Areas, Special Resource Areas, and HMP Core and Linkage Areas, as defined in the HMP, the CMWD would demonstrate how implementation of the project would comply with the requirements of the HMP, including the established conservation goals and objectives of the HMP, and the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified for protected resources. The City would use its land-use regulatory authority to fully implement the provisions of the HMP during project review, and would follow the project processing implementation procedures as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.210, Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements. Cultural Resources During construction activities, CMWD would comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, upon unintentional discovery or disturbance of human remains. California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be met in the treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to provide technical assistance to the MLD, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human remains. Geology The design of the project components would implement the relevant requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the California Building Code (CBC), and the Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction, as J ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-1 11optombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 160 of 223 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES updated or amended, and California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California." The CBC provides a minimum seismic standard for certain building designs. Chapter 23 of the CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety. Chapter 33 of the CBC contains specific requirements pertaining to site demolition, excavation, and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapter 70 of the CBC regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. In addition, construction activities are subject to federal and state occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulatiqns (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and in Section A33 of the CBC. California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for project components within designated zones of required investigations. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction activities would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCB, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4 permit). Project components not falling within the triggering coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For Phase Ill project covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prescribing Best Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring, inspection, and record keeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms, straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff, and may include measures to minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the following: • Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized. • Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping. • Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels. • Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the project components and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents. • Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are detained (e.g., siltation basins). I I\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-2 £optombor 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 161 of 223 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATUR ES Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction and operation of the project components would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, management, handling, storage, release reporting and response actions, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous waste. These laws include: • U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which provides the 'cradle to grave' regulation of hazardous wastes; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq .), commonly known as the "superfund" law addressing remediation of contaminated sites. • U.S. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 5101 et seq.), which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways. • California Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.) and Hazardous Substances Account Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 25300 et seq.). • California Proposition 65, formally known as "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986" (Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, Sections 25249.5 through 25249.13), requiring persons and entities doing business in California using specific listed chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm or birth defects to provide a clea r and reasonable warning to individuals entering the site regarding the presence of such chemicals, and the implementing regulations for such laws. • County of San Diego Consolidated Fire Code, which regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. During construction, these laws govern the manner in which hazardous materials may be transported, used, stored, and disposed of as well as the handling and disposal of demolition debris containing hazardous waste. During operations, these laws govern the use, management, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and the management, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. Agency /Department State Agencies State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board California Coastal Commission California De12artment of Trans12ortation Local Agencies City of Vista City of Carlsbad City of Oceanside I ATKINS Table 1 Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals Permit/ Approval Action Associated With or Required For General Construction Activity Storm Water Storm Water discharges associated with Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 DWQ construction activity. Waste Discharge Requirements {Water Code Discharge of wa ste that might affect groundwater 13000 et seq.) or surface water (point/nonpoint-source) quality. Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a deferred certification area in the coastal zone. Encroachment Permit (California Streets and Consider issuance of 12ermits to cross state Highwalls Code Sections 660 et seg.) highwalls. Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW. Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. Discretionary Permit Required for construction activities within the city requiring discretionary approval. Required for potential impacts to sensitive species Habitat Management Plan Take Permit or habitats covered by the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a coastal zone. Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-3 September 19, 2012 Novem ber 14 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 162 of 223 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES Project Design and Construction Features The CMWD has incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The Phase Ill project would incorporate the following project design features. Aesthetics The following measures would be implemented into the design and construction of the Phase Ill project to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase Ill project: • Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal. • Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to those depicted on construction drawings. • All roadway features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, etc) and structures within state and private rights-of-way will be protected, maintained in a temporary condition, or restored. • Disturbed areas will be restored following construction consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by CMWD or the City, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by CMWD or the City to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CIP pipeline projects that would require trenching or that would require the temporary removal of concrete or asphalt, the disturbed area will be repaved to be consistent with the existing material. Air Quality The following BMPs would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction of Phase Ill project: • Water or dust control agents will be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt stockpiles as necessary to prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne. All soil to be stockpiled over 30 days will be protected with a secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent windblown dust. • Covering/tarping will occur on all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways unless additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport. • Soil handling operations will be suspended when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. The construction supervisor will have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating wind speed. • Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadway will be swept or vacuumed and disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. During periods of soil export or import, when there are more than six trips per hour, dirt removal from paved surfaces will be done at least twice daily. • Disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as work in the area is complete. • Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply wherever feasible, to avoid or minimize the use of engine-driven generators. • Air filters on construction equipment engines will be maintained in clean condition according to manufacturers' specifications. • The construction contractor will comply with an approved traffic control plan to reduce non-project traffic congestion impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with existing traffic and the prevention of truck queuing around local sensitive receptors will be incorporated into this plan. • Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences. • Trucks and equipment will not idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-4 ~oplombor 19, 2Ql 2 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 163 of 223 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJ ECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES Biological Resources The BMPs identified in the Carlsbad HMP would be implemented during the construction and operation of projects to minimize potential effects on biological resources: • Use BMPs to prevent pollution generated by construction activities from entering surface and groundwater. BMPs will also ensure that non-stormwater discharges are not discharged into stormwater drainage systems. BMPs may include: Regulatory measures such as erosion control ordinances and floodplain restrictions. Structural measures such as detention or retention basins, filters, weirs, check dams, or drainage diversions. Vegetative controls that reduce volume and accomplish pollutant removal by a combination of filtration, sedimentation, and biological uptake. Maintenance of pump stations, sewer lines, ~nd stormwater conveyance systems. Cultural practices such as restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer applications, storage or disposal of toxic chemicals, or washing of vehicles or equipment in areas that can drain to the estuary. Public education programs that educate residences about proper disposal of oil or chemicals and that provide opportunities (e.g. designated locations) for residents to properly dispose of contaminants. • For clearing, grading, and other construction activities within the watershed, ensure that proper irrigation and stormwater runoff mitigation measures are employed to reduce sediment loads and to prevent contamination from pesticide, fertilizers, petroleum products, and other toxic substances. • Restrict or limit recreational or other activities within 200 feet of important forage, breeding, and roosting areas. • Require attenuation measures for activities that generate noise levels greater than 60 dBA if occurring within 200 feet of important breeding habitat during the nesting season. • Restrict construction hours to daytime hours that do not require the use of construction lighting. Cultural and Paleontological Resources The following procedure for unintentional disturbance of cultural resources will be implemented to minimize impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources during construction of Phase Ill project: • If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during CIP project construction, or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered, all ground-disturbing activity will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist retained by the City or CMWD for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. No further grading will occur in the area of the discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation will be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the City or CMWD where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Geology and Soils The following measures will be implemented into the construction and operation of Phase Ill project to minimize potential risks from geologic and soil hazards: • A site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each CIP project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil, whic~ would determine the risk to the project associated with fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, lan~·slides, and expansive soils. The geotechnical investigations will describe site-specific conditions and make recommendations that will be incorporated into the construction specifications for the CIP project. Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to the following typical measures: I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-5 September 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 164 of 223 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill. Remove loose, unconsolidated soils and replace with properly compacted fill soils, or apply other design stabilization features. For thicker deposits, implement an applicable compaction technique such as dynamic compaction or compaction piles. Perform in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics. For landslides, implement applicable techniques such as stabilization; remedial grading and removal of landslide debris; or avoidance. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The following measures would be implemented into the construction to minimize potential effects related to hazards and hazardous materials: • Fire safety information will be disseminated to construction crews during regular safety meetings. Fire management techniques will be applied during project construction as deemed necessary by the lead agency and depending on-site vegetation and vegetation of surrounding areas. • A brush management plan will be incorporated during project construction by the City, CMWD, or a contractor, as necessary. Construction within areas of dense foliage during dry conditions will be avoided, when feasible. Hydrology and Water Quality The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of project components to minimize potential effects to hydrology and water quality: • A construction spill contingency plan will be prepared for new facilities in accordance with County Department of Environmental Health regulations and retained on site by the construction manager. If soil is contaminated by a spill, the soil will be properly removed and transported to a legal disposal site. • If groundwater is encountered and dewatering is required, then the groundwater will be disposed of by pumping to the sanitary sewer system or discharging to the storm drain system according to the conditions of the appropriate discharge permit. Noise The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of the project components to minimize noise effect to surrounding neighborhoods: • Heavy equipment will be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences. • Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators and compressors, will be maintained in proper operating condition and will be equipped with manufacturers' standard noise control devices or better (e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging, and/or engine enclosures). • Construction work, including on-site equipment maintenance and repair, will be limited to the hours specified in the noise ordinance of the affected jurisdiction. • Electrical power will be sueplied from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, in order to avoid or minimize the use of engine-driven generators. • Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences. • Operating equipment will be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations. • If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices will be powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine. • CMWD or their construction contractors will provide advance notice, between two and four weeks prior to construction, by mail to all residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. For projects that would require pile driving or blasting, noticing will be provided to all residents or property owners I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-6 September l \l, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 165 of 223 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES within 600 feet of the alignment. The announcement will state specifically where and when construction will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice will be made, either in person or by mail. • CMWD will identify and provide a public liaison person before and during construction to respond to concerns of neighboring residents about noise and other construction disturbance. The CMWD will also establish a program for receiving questions or complaints during cm1struction and develop procedures for responding to callers. Procedures for reaching the public liaison officer via telephone or in person will be included in notices distributed to the public in accordance with the information above. Transportation/Traffic The following measures would be implemented during construction of the Phase Ill project to minimize traffic effects to surrounding neighborhoods: • Prior to construction, the City will prepare a traffic control plan and coordinate with the cities of Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos to address traffic during construction of project components within the public right-of-ways of the affected jurisdiction(s), including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The traffic control plan will include signage and flagmen when necessary to allow the heavy equipment to utilize residential streets. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local school hours and emergency service providers regarding construction times. I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-7 £eptember 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 166 of 223 I ATKINS REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES This page intentionally left blank. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-8 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 167 of 223 Appendix B Sensitive Biological Resources Tables Sensitive Natural Communities Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Global State MHCP Community Rank111 Rank121 Habitat Group131 Mitigation Ratio141 Non-native grassland G4 54 E 0.5:1 Valley needlegrass grassland Gl 53.1 B 3:1 Diegan coastal sage scrub G3 53.1 C 2:1 Diegan coastal sage -chaparral scrub G3 53.2 C 2:1 Chamise chaparral G4 54 D 1:1 Scrub oak chaparral G3 53.3 D 1:1 Southern maritime chaparral Gl 51.1 B 3:1 Southern mixed chaparral G4 54 D 1:1 Coast live oak woodland G4 54 B 3:1 Southern coastal live oak riparian forest G3 54 A 3:1 (No Net Loss) Southern riparian forest G4 54 Southern riparian scrub G3 53.2 Coastal and valley freshwater marsh G3 52.1 San Diego mesa claypan vernal pool G2 52.1 A 5:1 (1) (2) (3) Global Rank-The global rank is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range. Gl = Critically Imperiled-At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity, very ~teep declines, or other factors. Less than 6 viable element occurrences or less than 1,000 individuals or less than 2,000 acres. G2 = Imperiled-At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. Estimated 6-20 viable occurrences or 1,000-3,000 individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres. G3 = Vulnerable-At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. Estimated 21-80 occurrences or 3,000-10,000 individuals or 10,000-50,000 acres. G4 = Apparently Secure-Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. This rank is clearly lower than G3 but factors exist to cause some concern; i.e., there is some threat, or somewhat narrow habitat. State Rank-The state rank refer to the imperilment status only within California's State boundaries. Sl = Critically Imperiled-Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. Less than 6 occurrences or less than 1,000 individuals or less than 2,000 acres. Sl.1 = very threatened; Sl.2 = threatened; Sl.3 = no current threats known. S2 = Imperiled-Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. Estimated 6-20 occurrences or 1,000-3,000 individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres. S2.1 = very threatened; S2.2 = threatened; S2.3 = no current threats known. S3 = Vulnerable-Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Estimated 21-80 occurrences or 3,000-10,000 individuals or 10,000 -50,000 acres. S3.1 = very threatened; S3.2 = threatened; S3.3 = no current threats known; S4 = Apparently Secure-Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. MHCP Rank-Habitat types located within the planning area of the MHCP have been assigned to Groups A-F based on the sensitivity and range of habitat within the planning area boundaries. Generally, Group A habitats are the most sensitive and Group F habitats are the least sensitive. 141 Mitigation ratios may increase or decrease depending on the resources present and where the impact and mitigation is proposed, as approved by the regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdiction in which the impact and mitigation occurs. Source: CNDDB 2012; CNPS 2010; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al. 1998 ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-1 September 19, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 168 of 223 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Federal State CNPS Common Name Scientific Name Status111 Status121 List131 General Habitat Associations NON-VASCULAR bottle liverwort Sphaerocarpos drewei 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. California screw moss Tortu/a californica 18.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Campbell's liverwort Geothallus tuberosus lB.l Coastal scrub, vernal pools. coastal triquetrella Triquetrella californica 18.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Shevock's copper moss Schizymenium shevockii 18.2 Cismontane woodland. ashy spike-moss Selaginella cinerascens 4.2 Coastal sage scrub, chaparral. Fern California adder's-tongue Ophiog/ossum lusitanicum 4.2 Chaparral, grasslands, vernal pools. fern ssp. californicum Angiosperms -Monocotyledons California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica FE SE 18.1 Vernal pools. Orcutt's brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii 18.1 Vernal pools, valley and foothill g~assland, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, chaparral, meadows. San Diego goldenstar Mui/la clevelandii 18.l Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Shaw's agave Agave shawii 2.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. thread-leaved brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia FT SE 18.1 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Angiosperms -Dicotyledons Blochman's dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. 18.1 Coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, valley blochmaniae and foothill grassland. California adolphia Adolphia ca/ifornica 2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. chaparral sand-verbena Abronia villosa var. aurita 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. cliff spurge Euphorbia misera 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. 18.l Coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and cou/teri foothill grassland, vernal pools. Dean's milk-vetch Astraga/us deanei 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest. decumbent goldenbush lsocoma menziesii var. lB.2 Coastal scrub. decumbens Del Mar manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa FE 18.1 Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest. ssp. crassifo/ia Del Mar Mesa sand aster Corethrogyne filaginifo/ia 18.l Chaparral, coastal scrub. var. linifolia dwarf burr (San Diego) Ambrosia pumila FE 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill ambrosia grassland. Encinitas baccharis Baccharis vanessae FT SE 18.1 Chaparral. ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-2 September l 9, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 169 of 223 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Engelmann oak Gambel's water cress little mousetail many-stemmed dudleya Moran's navarretia mud nama Nuttall's scrub oak Orcutt's hazardia Orcutt's linanthus Orcutt's spineflower Palmer's goldenbush Parry's tetracoccus prostrate vernal pool navarretia Rainbow manzanita Robinson's pepper-grass round-leaved filaree San Diego barrel cactus San Diego bur-sage San Diego button-celery San Diego marsh-elder San Diego sagewort San Diego thorn-mint smooth tarplant snake cholla ATKINS Federal State CNPS Scientific Name Status(1l Status(Zl List(3l General Habitat Associations Quercus engelmannii 4.2 Chaparral, coast live oak woodland, grassland. Nasturtium gambelii FE ST 18.1 Marshes and swamps. Myosurus minimus ssp. 3.1 Vernal pools. a pus Dudleya multicaulis 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Navarretia fossalis FT 18.1 Vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps, playas. Noma stenocarpum 2.2 Marshes and swamps. Quercus dumasa lB.l Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub. Hazardia orcuttii FC ST 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Linanthus orcuttii 18.3 Chaparral. Chorizanthe orcuttiana FE SE 18.1 Coastal scrub, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest. Ericameria palmeri ssp. 2.2 ' Coastal scrub, chaparral. palmeri Tetracoccus dioicus 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Navarretia prostrata 18.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Arctostaphylos 18.1 Chaparral. rainbowensis ' Lepidium virginicum var. 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. robinsonii California macrophylla 18.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Ferocactus viridescens 2.1 Chapparal, Diegan coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Ambrosia chenopodiifolia 2.1 Coastal scrub mostly associated with maritime succulent scrub. Eryngium aristulatum var. FE SE 18.1 Vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and parish ii foothill grassland. Iva hayesiana 2.2 Marshes and swamps, playas. Artemisia palmeri 4.2 Riparian, wetland, adjacent uplands. Acanthomintha ilicifolia FT SE 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, verna I pools. Centromadia pungens ssp. 18.1 Valley and foothill grassland, chenopod laevis scrub, meadows, playas, riparian woodland. Opuntia californica var. 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. ca/ifornica CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-3 September 19, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 170 of 223 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Federal State CNPS Common Name Scientific Name Status111 Status121 List131 General Habitat Associations southern tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. lB.l Marshes and swamps (margins), valley and austra/is foothill grassland. Southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus var. 4.2 Riparian, wetlands, vernal pools. leopoldii summer holly Comarostaphylis lB.2 Chaparral. diversifo/ia ssp. diversifolia variegated dudleya Dudleya variegata 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. wart-stemmed ceanothus Ceanothus verrucosus 2.2 Chaparral. Western dicondra Dichondra occidentalis 4.2 Coastal sage scrub. willowy monardella Monardel/a viminea FE SE 18.1 Coastal scrub/alluvial ephemeral washes with adjacent coastal scrub, chaparral, or sycamore woodland. 111 Federal Status-FE= Federally Endangered; FT= Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD= Delisted 121 State Status-SE= State Endangered; ST= State Threatened !3l CNPS-lA = Plants presumed extinct in California; 18 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; 3 = Plants in need of more information; 4 = Plants of limited distribution. x.l = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened or high degree and immediacy ofthreat). x.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened}. x.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Source: CDFG 2012; CNPS 2012; Consortium 2010; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al.1998 ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-4 September 19, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 171 of 223 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name INVERTEBRATES Crustaceans Riverside fairy shrimp San Diego fairy shrimp Insects Hermes copper butterfly Harbison's dun skipper Monarch butterfly AMPHIBIANS Arroyo toad Coast Range newt Western spadefoot REPTILES Coast (San Diego) horned lizard Coast patch-nosed snake Coastal western whiptail Coronado skink Northern red-diamond rattlesnake Orange-throated whiptail Rosy boa San Diego ringneck snake ATKINS Federal State Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations Streptocephalus woottoni FE Found in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub habitats. Branchinecta FE Vernal pools. sandiegonensis Lycaena hermes Found in southern mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub at western edge of Laguna mountains. Euphyes vestries harbisoni Riparian woodland, riparian scrub, oak woodland. Danaus p/exippus Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves, such as eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and cypress trees where nectar and water sources are available. Bufo californicus FE SSC Semi-arid regions near washes, rivers, or intermittent streams, including valley-foothill and desert riparian areas and desert washes. Taricha torosa torosa SSC Lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1 km to breed in ponds, reservoirs, coastal drainages, or slow moving streams. Spea hammondii SSC Occurs primarily in ponds located in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. Phrynosoma coronatum SSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral in arid and (blainvillii population) semi-arid climate conditions. Salvadora hexalepis SSC Brushy or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern virgultea California. Aspidoscelis tigris Found in deserts and semiarid areas with sparse stejnegeri vegetation and open areas and in woodland and riparian areas. Eumeces skiltonianus SSC Found in grassland, chaparral, pinyon-juniper and interparieta/is juniper sage woodland, and pine-oak and pine forests. Crotalus ruber ruber SSC Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland, and desert areas from coastal San Diego County to the eastern slopes of the mountains. Aspidoscelis hyperythra SSC Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley-foothill hardwood habitats. Charina trivirgata Found in desert and chaparral habitats from the coast to the Mojave. Prefers moderate to dense vegetation and rocky cover. Diadophis punctatus Found in open, fairly rocky areas and in moist areas similis near intermittent streams. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-5 September 19, 201 2 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 172 of 223 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Silvery legless lizard Southwestern pond turtle Two-striped garter snake BIRDS American peregrine falcon Bank swallow Belding's savannah sparrow Bell's sage sparrow Burrowing owl California horned lark Coastal cactus wren Coastal California gnatcatcher Cooper's hawk Double-crested cormorant Ferruginous hawk Golden eagle Grasshopper sparrow Large-billed savannah sparrow Least Bell's vireo Least bittern ATKINS Federal State Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations Annie/la pu/chra pu/chra SSC Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks, where soil is moist. Actinemys marmorata SSC Inhabits permanent or nearly permanent bodies of pa/Iida water in many habitat types below 6,000 feet. Thamnophis hammondii SSC Found in or near permanent fresh water and often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth. Falco peregrinus anatum FD SE Found near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water or on cliffs, banks, dunes, or mounds. Riparia riparia ST Nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. Passerculus SE Inhabits coastal salt marshes. sandwichensis beldingi Amphispiza be/Ii be/Ii WL Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise. Found in coastal sage scrub in south of range. Athene cunicularia SSC Open, dry annual, or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Eremophila alpestris actia WL Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats. Campylorhynchus SSC Coastal sage scrub with tall Opuntia cactus for brunneicapil/us nesting and roosting. sandiegensis Polioptila californica FT SSC Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas, californica and on slopes. Accipiter cooperii WL Open, interrupted, or marginal type woodland. Nest sites mainly found in riparian growths of deciduous trees in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains. Pha/acrocorax auritus WL Found on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior of the State. Buteo regalis WL Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills, and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Aquila chrysaetos FD SE,SFP Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert. Ammodramus SSC Favors native grasslands with a mix of grasses, forbs, savannarum and scattered shrubs. Passerculus SSC Salt marsh. sandwichensis rostratus Vireo be/Iii pusillus FE SE Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft. lxobrychus exilis SSC Found in marshlands and borders of ponds and reservoirs which provide ample cover. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-6 September 19, 201 2 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 173 of 223 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Light-footed clapper rail Loggerhead shrike Long-eared owl Northern harrier Osprey Prairie falcon Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Southwestern willow flycatcher Tricolored blackbird Western snowy plover White-faced ibis White-tailed kite Yellow warbler Yellow-breasted chat MAMMALS American badger Hoary bat Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Pacific pocket mouse Pallid bat ATKINS Federal State Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations Rallus longirostris levipes FE SE Sal marsh. Lanius ludovicianus SSC Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oasis', scrub and washes. Asia otus SSC Riparian bottomlands with tall willows, cottonwoods, or coast live oaks adjacent to open land with ample prey. Circus cyaneus SSC Coastal salt and fresh-water marsh. Nest and forage in grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain marshes. Pandion haliaetus WL Ocean shore, bays, fresh-water lakes, and larger streams. Falco mexicanus WL Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly. Aimophila ruficeps WL Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed canescens chaparral. Empidonax trail/ii extimus FE SE Riparian woodlands. Agelaius tricolor SSC Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with available insect prey. Charadrius alexandrinus FT SSC Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large nivosus alkali lakes. Plegadis chihi WL Shallow fresh-water marsh. Elanus leucurus SFP Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging. Dendroica petechia SSC Prefers riparian plant associations such as willows, brewsteri cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for nesting and foraging. Also, found in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. lcteria virens SSC Summer resident that inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses. Taxidea taxus SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Lasiurus cinereus 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. Chaetodipus fa/lax fa/lax SSC Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, and sagebrush. Perognathus FE SSC Found within 4 km of the coast on fine-grained sandy longimembris pacificus substrates in coastal sage scrub, coastal strand, and river alluvium. Antrozous pa/lidus SSC Found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-7 September 19, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 174 of 223 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Federal State Common Name Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations San Diego black-tailed Lepus ca/ifornicus SSC Found in coastal sage scrub with intermediate jackrabbit bennettii canopy stages of shrub habitats and open shrub I herbaceous and tree I herbaceous edges. San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma /epida SSC Moderate to dense canopies of coastal scrub. intermedia Abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes. Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC Found in moist coastal forest to semi-desert scrublands, near riparian areas and wetlands. Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC Found in many open and semi-arid to arid habitats, ca/ifornicus including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral. Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC Prefers riparian areas dominated by cottonwoods, oaks, sycamores, and walnuts. Western small-footed Myotis ciliolabrum Found in a wide range of habitats near water, myotis including arid wooded, brushy uplands, and open stands in forests and woodlands. Seeks cover in caves, buildings, mines and crevices Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert washes, and palm oasis habitats. Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Optimal habitats are open forests and woodlands with sources of water over which to feed. Southern mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Variety of habitats over a broad range. 111 Federal Status -FE= Federally Endangered; FT= Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD= De listed 121 State Status -SE= State Endangered; ST= State Threatened; SFP = State Fully Protected; SSC= State Species of Special Concern; WL = State Watch List Source: CDFG 2012; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al. 1998 ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-8 September 19, 2012 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 175 of 223 Attachment B Biological Resources St udy Addendum July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 176 of 223 HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com March 30, 2018 Lindsey Stephenson, P.E., Senior Engineer City of Carlsbad Public Works 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 HELIX Environmental Planning KJC-27 Subject: Addendum Report to the Biological Resources Study and Adopted IS/MND findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Dear Ms. Stephenson: This document is an update to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted IS/MND) EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012(SCH No. 2012091049) findings for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Approved Project) located in the City of Carlsbad (city), San Diego County, California. The IS/MND was adopted by the Board of Directors of the CMWD on November 27, 2012. A focused biological resources study was prepared May 15, 2013 by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX), subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND (HELIX 2013). The biological resources study provided specific information necessary in fulfilling State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) CEQA-Plus requirements and CMWD's Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (SRF Program) application, which,requires demonstration of project conformance with federal policy pertaining to biological resources. As addressed in the Adopted IS/MND, the Approved Project components have been designed to be restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility right-of-way (ROW) areas, access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. The IS/MND determined that the areas being considered for construction of Approved Project components do not support high quality biological resources, and the Approved Project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive biological resources, including those resources protected under federal policy. However, several of the Approved Project components were determined to occur adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, and potential indirect impacts to these resources (e.g., night lighting, construction noise and vibration, runoff, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel) were determined to occur during construction. Potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF as identified in the IS/MND and focused biological resources study. July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 177 of 223 Attachment A Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Status List July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 195 of 223 FEDERALLY LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND DELJSTED TAXA IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CARLSBAD FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE LISTING FEDERAL REGISTER RECOVERY DISTRIBUTION 12) Taxon Lead State Fed DOCS Scientific Name Common Name Abbrev. Office Status Sta~sl Date I Crit;ca[ I Other I Plan l:;e~~:;l:++++++++M Listed H~tat PLANTS' 58 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 48 TAXA Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Dieeo thommint ACIL CFWO SE FT 13-0ct-98 f-08 2009 8 X Acanthoscyphus parishii var. goodmaniana ( Oxytheca p. var. i,.)rJl Cushenbury oxytheca ACPAGO CFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02 D97 2009 9C X Acmispon dendroideus var. traskiae (Lotus d. subsp. Reel ass traskiae l f 11 San Clemente Island lotus ACDETR CFWO SE FT 11-Aug-77 '6-JuJ-13 F 84 2012 15 X Allium munzii Munz's onion ALMU CFWO ST FE 13-0ct-98 fr-13 2013 BC X Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia AMPU CFWO FE 2-Jul-02 f-10 2010 IIC X X Arctostaphylos glandulosa subso. crassifolia Del Mar manzanita ARGLCR CFWO FE 7-0ct-96 2010 6C X Arenaria valudicola marsh sandwort ARPA VFWO SE FE 3-Aue-93 F 98 2008 2 X X CHMS Astra,!alus albens Cushenburv milk-vetch ASAL CFWO FE 24-Auo-94 f-02 2003 D97 2009 8C X Astra~alus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch ASBR VFWO FE 29-Jan-97 f-06 F99 2009 2 X X X Reel ass nQ! Lane Mountain milk-warranted Astrar!alus iaer!erianus vetch ASJA CFWO FE 6-0ct-98 fr-JI 14-05-02 2008 5 X Astragalus lenriginows var. Coachella Valley m;Jk- coachellae vetch ASLECO CFWO FE 6-0ct-98 f-13 2009 6C X Delistnot Astragalus magdalenae var. I~ oeirsonii Peirson's milk-vetch ASMAPE CFWO SE FT 6-0ct-98 fr-08 J 7-Jul-08 2008 9 X Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus Ventura marsh milk-vetch ASPYLA VFWO SE FE 21-Mav-Ol f-04 2010 6C X X Astragalus tener var. titi coastal dunes milk-vetch AS TETI VFWO SE FE 12-Aug-98 FOS 2009 6C X X Astra~alus tricarinatus triple-ribbed milk-vetch ASTR CFWO FE 6-0 ct-98 2009 14 X X Atriplex corona/a var. San Jacinto Valley notatior crownscale ATCONO CFWO FE 13-0ct-98 fr-13 2012 9C X Baccharis vanessae Encinitas baccharis BAVA CFWO SE FT 7-0ct-96 2011 SC X Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberrv BENE CFWO SE FE 13-0ct-98 f-08 2009 8 X X X X Brodiaea filifoha thread-leaved brodiaea BRFI CFWO SE FT 13-0 ct-98 f-11 2009 8C X xx X X Castilleia dnerea ash-2:rav naintbrush CACI CFWO FT 14-Seo-98 f-07 2013 8 X San Clemente Island Downlist Cash/Jeja grisea paintbrush CAGR CFWO SE FT I l-Aue-77 26-Jul-13 F84 2012 14 X Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus CEOP CFWO SE FT 13-0ct-98 f-07 2013 8C X Catalina Island mountain- Cercocarous traskiae mahogany CETR CFWO SE FE 8-Aue-97 2007 8 X Chloropyron maritimum subsp. maritimum (Cordylanthus maritimus subsp. marilimus)fl 1 salt marsh bird's-beak CHMAM CFWO SE FE 28-Seo-78 F 85 2009 9 X X X Chorizanthe orcuttiana Orcutt's soineflower CHOR CFWO SE FE 7-0ct-96 201 4 5 X CNOR Update Chorizanthe panyi var. San Fernando Valley 22-Nov- femandina soineflower CHPAFE VFWO SE FC 25-0ct-99 13 NA X X Deinandra conjugens Hemizoniac.) fll Otav tarclant DECO CFWO SE FT 13-0ct-98 f-02 F 04 2009 8C X Delphinium variegatum San Clemente Island subsp. kinkiense larkspur DEYAK! CFWO SE FE I l-Au[!-77 F 84 2008 15 X slender-homed Dodecahema /eptoceras fl l spineflower DOLE CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-87 2010 7C X X X Dud/eya cymosa subsp. Santa Monica Mountains ovatifolia dud.1eya DUCYO\ VFWO FT 29-Jan-97 F99 2009 6 X X L~ouna Beach live- Dud/eya stolonifera forever DUST CFWO ST FT 13-0ct-98 2010 8 X Eremogone ursina (Arenaria ursina) fil Bear Valley sandwort ERUR CFWO FT 14-Sen-98 f-07 2008 8 X Eriastmm densifolium subsp. Santa Ana River woolly- sanctomm star ERDESA CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-87 2010 6C X X X CHMS Erif!eron parishii Parish's daisy ERPA CFWO FT 24-Aun-94 f-02 2003 D 97 2009 8C X X Eriogonum kennedyi var. southern mountain wild austromontanum buckwheat ERKEAU CFWO FT 14-Seo-98 f-07 2008 9 X Eriogonum ovalifolium var. CHMS vinewn Cushenburv buckwheat EROVVI CFWO FE 24-Aurt-94 f-02 2003 D97 2009 9C X Eryngium aristulatum var. narishii San Die1?0 button celerv ERARPA CFWO SE FE 3-Aue-93 F98 2010 9C X X Fremontodendron mexicanum Mexican flannelbush FRME CFWO SR FE 13-0ct-98 f-07 2009 8 X Grinde/ia fraxino-pra.lensis Ash Meadows 1?umolant GRFRPR NFWO SR FT 20-Mav-85 f-85 F90 2008 14 X He/ianthemum f!reenei Island rush-rose HEGR VFWO FT 13-Jul-97 FOO 2010 14 X San Clemente Island Lithonhraf!1na maximum woodland star LIMA CFWO SE FE 8-Aue-97 F84 2007 2 X 1Malacothamn11s c/ementinus San Clemente Island MACL CFWO SE FE I 1-Aug-77 Reel ass F 84 2012 BC X bush-mallow llill ~ https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status_ List%20.htm Page 1 of 4 10/4/2017 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 196 of 223 Page 2 of 4 16-Mav- 11. Monardella viminea (M. /inoides Subsp. V.) rJ] willowy monardella MOVI CFWO SE FE IJ-Oct-98 fr-12 2012 8 X Nasturtium gambelii (Rorippa ,rambe/ii) f1l Gambel's watercress NAGA VFWO ST FE 3-Au ,.93 F 98 2011 5 X X X X Navarretiafossalis spreading navarretia NAFO CFWO FT 13-0ct-98 f-10 F 98 2009 8 X X X Nitrovhila mohavensis Amareosa niterwort NIMO NFWO SE FE 20-Mav-85 f-85 F 90 2008 X Eureka Valley evening-OECAEU CFWO SR FE Proposed Oenothera califomica subsp. primrose Deli sting eurekensis (0. avita subso. e.) 26-Aor-78 27-Feb-14 F 82 2007 6 X Orc111tia califomica California Orcutt grass ORCA CFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2011 !JC X X X Pentachaeta lyonii Lyon's pentachaeta PELY VFWO SE FE 29-Jan-97 f-06 F 99 2008 2C X Physaria kingii subsp. bemardina (Lesquerel/a k San Bernardino CHMS subso. b.l Ill Mountains bladdemod PHKIBE CFWO FE 24-Auo-94 f-02 2003 D97 2009 9C X Poa atropurpurea San Bernardino blue.e:rass POAT CFWO FE 14-Sep-98 f-08 2008 2 X X Poeoevne abramsii San Dieeo mesa mint POAB CFWO SE FE 28-Seo-78 F98 2010 8C X Pos!OI!vne n11di11sc11la Otav mesa mint PONU CFWO SE FE 3-Au•-93 F98 2010 2C X Santa Cruz Island rock- Sibarajilifolia cress SIFI CFWO FE 8-Aug-97 2012 11 X Sidalcea pedata oedate checker-mallow SIPE CFWO SE FE 31 -Aug-84 F98 2011 SC X Swallenia alexandrae Eureka Dune grass SWAL CFWO SR FE Proposed delistin£?. 26-Anr-78 27-Feb-14 F-82 2007 6 X Taraxac11m californicum California taraxacum TACA CFWO FE 14-Sep-98 f-08 2013 5 X Thelypodium stenopetalum slender-petaled mustard THST CFWO SE FE 31 -Aug-84 F 98 2011 5C X Trichostema austromontanum subso. comvactum Hidden Lake bluecurls TRAUCO CFWO FT 14-Seo-98 nof-07 2013 15 X Verbesina dissita hie-leaved crown beard VEDI CFWO ST FT 7-0ct-96 2010 !IC X Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree YUBR 90 dav findin11 I Sent 16 INVERTEBRATES• 10 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 9 TAXA Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp VPFS SFWO FT 19-Sen-94 f-05 F05 2007 2C X Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp SDFS CFWO FE 3-Feb-97 f-07 F 98 2008 8C XX Danaus plexippus plexippus Monarch butterfly DAPLPL ROJ Pos. 90 DF to list 31-Dec- 2014 X XX xx X X X RPO Dinacoma caseyi Casev's June beetle CJB CFWO FE 22-Sen-J J f-11 2013 JJC X Euvhilotes balloides allvni El Seeundo blue butterllv ESB CFWO FE l-Jun-76 o-77 F98 2008 9 X Quino checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino butterfly QCB CFWO FE 16-Jan-97 f-09 FOJ 2009 9C xx X X Glaucopsyche lygdamus Palos Verdes blue valosverdesensis butterllv PVB CFWO FE 2-Jul-80 f-80 F84 2014 6 X Helminrhoglypta (coyote) Mohave shoulderband Pos. 90 Fref!f!i snail MSS CFWO DFtolist X CAND Assess Lvcaena hermes Hermes conner butterflv HCB CFWO FC 2013 NA X Laguna Mountains Pv11ms mralis la5!lmae skiooer LMS CFWO FE l 6-Jan-97 f-06 2007 JC X Rhaphiomidas tem1inatus Delhi Sands flower- abdominalis lovine: flv DSF CFWO FE 23-Sep-93 F97 2008 6C X X Streptocephalus wooltoni Riverside fairy shrimp RFS CFWO FE 3-Aur,.93 fr-12 F98 2008 8C X XX X FISH• 9 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 2 TAXA Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker SAS CFWO SSC FT 12-Anr-00 f-10 D 14 2011 5C XX X X Cvvrinodon macularius desert ouofish DEPU R02 SE FE J I-Mar-86 f-86 f 93 2010 2C X X X Proposed Reel ass 13-"rlar- Eucvclo2obi11s newberrvi tidewater gobv TWG VFWO SSC FE 4-Feb-94 f-13 14 F 05 2007 7C X X Gasterosteus aculeatus unarmored threespine williamsoni stickleback UTS VFWO SE FE 13-0ct-70 wd-02 F 85 2009 6C X X X Gila bicolor mohavensis Mohave tui chub MTC CFWO SE FE IJ-Oct-70 F84 2009 6 X Gila ele~ans bonytail chub BOCH R06 SE FE 23-Anr-80 f-94 2002 2012 SC X X X steelhead (southern Oncorhvnchus mvkiss California ESU) SCSH NMFS SSC FE 5-Jan-06 f-05 F 12 3 X XX Ptychochei/us lucius Colorado Pikeminnow COP! R06 SE FE 24-Jul-85 f-94 F 02 8C X X X Xvrauchen texanus razorback sucker RASU R06 SE FE 23-0ct-91 f-94 2002 2012 JC X X X AMPHIBIANS• 4 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR I TAXON Anaxy111s californicus (B11/o .Proposed microscaphus c.) [l] Reel ass arroyo toad (a. Reopen southwestern t.) ARTO VFWO SSC FE 16-Dec-94 f-11 17-0ct-14 F 99 1009 8 XX X X X Batrachoseps major aridus (B. a.) [I] desert slender salamander DSS CFWO SE FE 4-Jun-73 F 82 2014 6 X https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status_ List%20.htm 10/4/201 7 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 197 of 223 Page 3 of 4 IRanaboylii oothill yellow-legged FYLF ISFWO ~ X ~og ill: petition to list Jul--!- 2015 Rana draytonii (R. aurora d.) 11 California red-leeeed froe CRLF SFWO SSC FT 23-Mav-96 fr-10 F 02 SC X X X X X Rana muscosa mountain yellow-legged frog (southern California DPS) MYLF CFWO SE FE 2-Jul-02 f-06 2012 3 X X X Spea Pos. 90 hammondii or Scaphiopus ill: hammondii petition to list Jul--1- !western soadefoot toad WST SFWO 2015 X XX X X REPTILES• 3 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR I TAXON ~ctinemys marmorata Western pond turtJe WIT CFWO Pos90 ill: petitlon to list 10- Apr-201 5 X XX X X desert tortoise (Mojave Govhems agassizii oooulation DPS) DETO NFWO ST FT 2-Anr-90 f-94 R I! 2010 12C X X X Coachella Valley fringe- Uma inornata toed lizard CVFTL CFWO SE FT 25-Seo-80 f-80 F 85 2010 SC X I~ Delisted I-Apr- Xantusia riversiana island night lizard !NL CFWO NA DL l l-Aue-77 14· F 84 2012 14 X BIRDS• 16 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 7 TAXA San Clemente sage Amvhisviza be/Ii clementeae so arrow scss CFWO SSC FT 1 I-Auo-77 F 84 2009 9 X Brachyramphus mamwratus marbled murrelet MAMU ROI SE FI 1-0ct-92 fr-10 f 97 2009 2C X X western snowy plover Charadrius nh1osus nivosus (Pacific Coast population C. a/exandrlnus n.) fl 1 DPS) WSP AFWO SSC FI 5-Mar-93 fr-12 f 07 2006 3C X xx Reopen £Q!!!!!!m1 yellow-billed cuckoo pch 12- Coccvzus americanus western DPS\ YBCU SFWO SE T l-Oct-14 o-14 Nov-14 NA X X X X X X southwestern willow Empidonax trail/ii extimus flycatcher SWFL R02 SE FE 27-Feb-95 fr-13 F 02 2014 3C X xx X X X Gymnogyps califomianus California condor CACO VFWO SE FE l l-Mar-67 f-77 F96 2013 4C X X X PDM Plan Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle BAEA R03 SE DL 14-Feb-78 04-Jun-JO F 86 NA X xx X X X San Clemente loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi shrike SCLS CFWO SSC FE ll-Aug-77 F 84 2009 12 X Draft PDM Plan Pe/ecanus occidentalis brown pelican BRPE VFWO DL 4-Feb-85 30-Sen-09 F 83 2007 NA X XX X X X Phoebastria albatms short-tailed albatross STAL RO? SSC FE 31-Jul-OO F 08 2009 8 X xx Me/ozone cr;ssalis Proposed eremophilus (Pipilo crissalis Delist04- eremovhilusJ Invo California towhee INCT CFWO SE FT 2-Seo-87 Nov-13 F 98 2008 Proposed Delist Polioptila ca/ifomica coasta1 California Dec-31- californica enatcatcher CAGN CFWO SSC FI 30-Mar-93 f-07 2014 2010 9C X xx X X light-footed Ridgway's Rallus obsoletus le1ripes (R rail (light-footed clapper lom!irostris /.) rail) LFCR CFWO SE FE 8-Mar-69 F 85 2009 6 X xx Ral/us obsoletus yumanensis Yuma Ridgway's rail R lom!irostris v.) (Yuma claooer rail) YUCR R02 ST FE JJ -Mar-67 D 10 2006 6 X X X Stemula antillarum browni (Stema a. b.) [I] California least tern CLT CFWO SE FE 8-Mar-69 F 85 2006 15C X X X X X Vireo be/Iii vusillus least Bell's vireo LBV CFWO SE FE 2-Mav-86 f-94 D 98 2006 9C X X X X X X MAMMALS*8TAXA;CFWOLEADFOR7TAXA San Bernardino kangaroo Dipodomys merriami parvus rat SBKR CFWO SSC FE 27-Jan-98 f-02 2009 6C X X X Pos90D Petition to G/aucomys sabrlnus San Bernardino flying List califomicus squirrel SBFS CFWO SSC NA l-Feb-12 NA X X Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat SKR CFWO ST FE JO-Sep-88 12MF D 97 2011 11 X X X delisting DQ! warranted 19-Aue- lQ https ://www _fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status _List%20_htm 10/4/2017 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 198 of 223 Terminate so XPand Trans Enhvdra lutris nereis southern sea otter sso VFWO FP FT I 1-Au•-87 Plan FOJ 9C X X X Microtus californicus scirpensis Amargosa vole AMVO CFWO SE FE 15-Nov-84 f-84 F 97 2009 6 X Nelson bighorn sheep (Peninsular Range DPS; Ovis canadensis nelsoni Peninsular bighorn sheep) PBS CFWO ST FE 18-Mar-98 f-09 FOO 2011 9C X X Perognath11s longimembris vacificus Pacific oocket mouse PPM CFWO SSC FE J-Feb-94 F 98 2010 6C X xx Urocvon lirtoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox CAIF CFWO ST FE 5-Mar-04 W-05 D 12 9 X LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS State Status: SE= endangere~ ST= threatened; sde = delisted; SR= rare; SSC= species of special concern Federal Status: FE= endangered; Fr= threatened; FC = candidate for listing; P-= propose~ PW= proposaJ withdrawn; DL = delisted; PDM = post delisting monitoring plan; X* = experimental population; 90D = 90-day finding; 12M = 12-month finding. Clitical Habitat: p = Proposed; f= Final; pr = Proposed Revised; fr = Final Revised. Recovery Plan: F = Final-year published, D = Draft-year published X Distribution <historical countv occurrences): LA= Los Angeles; 0 = Oranl!e; SD= San Diee.o; IN= Invo; KE= Kem; SB= San Bernardino; Riv = Riverside; Imo= Imoerie.l • Plant names format: scientific name including synonym, if any, followed by common name in parentheses (e.g. A/limn uumzii (Munz's onion); Eremogo11e ursina (Areuaria ursina) (Bear Valley sandwort)I Animal names format: common name including name of DPS, if any, followed by scientific name (including synonyms, if any) in parentheses [e.g. Santa Ana sucker (CtLlastonu,s sautaanae); western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population DPS) (Charadrius uivosus uivosus (Clwradriu.s alexa11drim,s uivosus))J [II Current name, followed by name still listed in CFR in parentheses. Cite "current name (older name)" fonn in the beginning of a document but use current name throu.cl10ut. 121 For soecies' distribution refer to the most recent 5-Year Review or utilize the "Distribution" link to access the ECOS Manner. 131 For species' critica1 habitat description and boundaries refer to the final critical habitat ru1e or utilize the "Critical Habitat" link to access the ECOS criticaJ habitat Mapper. [41 RPN (Recovery Priority Number; distinctions relate to degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic rank, and conflict (NA= not applicable) LIST REVISED July 6, 2015. SEND CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO JANE HENDRON (iane hendron(a)fws.gov, 760-431-9440) https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status_ List%20.htm Page 4 of 4 10/4/2017 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 199 of 223 Attachment C Cultural Resource Inventory Addendum July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 200 of 223 March 26, 2018 Page 2 of7 the previous work and previously recorded resources intersecting and immediately surrounding the APE in accordance with CEQA-Plus. PROJECT SUMMARY AND LOCATION The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at the existing CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California 92011. Figure 1 shows the proposed appended segments. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) lies north and south of State Route 78 (SR-78) along the Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansion Segment 7 (ES 7) is located south of SR-78, west of College A venue, and northeast of Carlsbad Village Drive (Figure 2). The new or relocated storage tank would be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site near the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road (Figure 3). New potable water pipelines would be installed in the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (see Figures 1 and 2). Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase III, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase III, would expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase III project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase III project would expand the treatment capacity from 4.0 million gal. per day (mgd) to 8.0 mgd within the CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase III project would also install 81,000 ft. of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The present Class I study consisted of a formal request for records of previously identified cultural resources and studies on file at the SCIC. The records search was completed on April 12, 2013. The current investigation also included a request for the NAHC in Sacramento to conduct a search of the Sacred Land Files, which was completed on April 18, 2013 . The resulting data has been used to assess: • the extent of previously completed studies of cultural resources that intersect the currently proposed appended Project APE; • the number and character of previously recorded cultural resources intersecting the currently proposed appended Project APE. RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS The records search conducted at the SCIC on April 12, 2013 was re-utilized for the current study as the quarter-mile search radius applied in the original study is still adequate and applicable for the current appended Project APE. A copy of the record search results from the SCIC is attached in Confidential Appendix B of the original 2014 report (see Becker and Daniels 2014). July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 202 of 223 March 26, 2018 Page 3 of7 PREVIOUS REPORTS As noted, 19 reports addressing portions of the currently proposed appended Project APE are identified in the records search results (Table 1). The proposed expansion segments and facilities located in the area covered by each of the previous studies are listed in the last column of the table. A listing of the remaining previous cultural resource reports within the lf4-mi. radius of the APE but not intersecting it may be found in Confidential Appendix B of the original 2014 report. Table 1. NADB No. Unfiled 1121129 1121984 1122296 1122374 1122598 1124111 1124229 1124263 1124895 1125055 1126094 1127411 1128739 1129240 1129361 1129571 Previous Cultural Resource Studies Overlapping the Appended Portions of the Project APE Portions of Authors Date Title Appended APE Addressed Susan Hector 1981 Assessment of Archaeological Site SOM-W-133, 5 Carlsbad, California Susan Hector 1985 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of 5 Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad. WEST EC 1980 Regional Historic Preservation Study Tank D Services Environmental 1973 Environmental Impact Report for the Planned 5 Impact Profiles Communitv -Carlsbad Palisades Dennis 1992 Archaeological Test Report for Prehistoric Site Tank D Gallegos CA-SOl-6819, Carlsbad, CA. Archaeological Evaluations at Calavera Hills SDI- Sue Wade 1992 5416, Archaeological Testing at SDl-12470, SDI-5, 7 12471 Larry Draft Environmental Impact Report: Revised 1982 Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad, 5,7 See mans California Charles Bull 1977 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Lake 5,7 Calvera Hills Plan Area Brian F. Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of the Mooney 1991 Carlsbad Zone 20 Specific Plan Area, Carlsbad, Tank D Associates CA Recon 1976 Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact 5 Information for Lake Calavara Hills, Units I-IV RMW Paleo Cultural Resources Reconnaissance & Evaluation Associates 1998 of the Hadley & Carnation Properties in the City of Tank D Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Charles S. Bull 1976 Appendix E: An Archaeological Survey of Lake 5 Calavera Hills RMW Paleo Excavation of Features on Site CA-SDl-6819 and Associates 2001 Monitoring of Grading on the Hadley Property for Tank D Rvland Homes, Carlsbad, San Dieao Countv, CA WEST EC 1975 Excerpt from City of Carlsbad-EIR-295, Plaza 5 Services Camino Real Expansion Brian F. A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for Mooney 2003 Tank D Associates the Back Rail Project Brian F. Byrd Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I and Collin 2002 Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5, San 5 O'Neill Diego County, CA Monica City of Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans Guerrero and Dennis R. 2003 Cultural Resource Background Study, City of 5 GalleQOS Carlsbad, California July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 203 of 223 March 26, 2018 Page 4 of7 NADB No. 1131144 1132085 Authors Susan Hector Russell Collett and Dayle Cheever Date Title 2007 t:::.ncma-/-'enasqwtos Transmission Lme Kecords Search Significance Assessment of Six Cultural Resources Sites within the College Boulevard 2001 Reach A Alternative 1, One Site in the Cannon Road Reach 3, and Three Sites in the Cannon Road Reach 4 Alignments, Bridge and Thoroughfare District 4 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES Portions of Appended APE Addressed Tank D 5,7 The results of the records search show that there are four previously recorded sites directly intersecting the currently proposed appended Project APE. Table 2 provides a description of each of the sites intersecting the current appended APE and identifies which segment of the project each site intersects. Detailed site records for these sites can be found in Confidential Attachment C of the current letter report. Brief descriptions of each expansion segment and facility and the sites intersecting and adjacent to them are provided below. Maps of each proposed expansion segment and facility along with the locations of previously recorded sites are provided in Confidential Attachment B. Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites Intersecting the Appended Portions of Project APE Designation Museum Appended Primary Trinomial of Man Site Type Recorder Expansion Number Number Segment No. Intersected P-37-CA-SDI-SDM-W- 5601 5601 1293 AP2. Lithic scatter; Cassiola and 7 AP15. Habitation debris Graham 1977 Franklin and AP2. Lithic scatter; AP3. Thesken 1978; 6139 6139 1781 Ceramic scatter; AP15. Romani and 5, Potable Water Habitation debris Hawthorne 1981; Pipelines Morgan and · Tennesen 2010 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP3. Thesken 1978; 6819 6819 1878 Ceramic scatter; AP15. Huey 1992 Tank D Habitation debris 10025/ AP2. Lithic scatter; Hedges 1978; 13124 10025 133 AP15. Habitation debris Prewitt, Allen, and 5 Stahl 1967 Expansion Segment 5 ES 5 consists of 4-in.-to 8-in.-diameter pipeline that will extend the recycled water distribution system north along El Camino Real to serve the second phase of the Robertson Ranch development, several existing homeowners associations, and existing landscape irrigation. July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 204 of 223 March 26, 2018 Page 5 of7 Sites SDI-6139, and CA-SDI-10025/13124 were identified as intersecting the proposed appended Project APE of ES 5 (Figure 4 in Confidential Attachment B). SDI-6139 was originally recorded by Franklin and Thesken in 1978 as a possible village site with a large shell, bone, ceramic, and lithic scatter, including projectile points, flakes, ground stone, hammer stones, chopping tools, and a scraper. Historic-period porcelain was also recorded. The site was revisited by Romani and Hawthorne in 19 81 , and they suggested that the site was possibly an ethnohistoric village encountered by Portola in 1769. In 2010, the site was revisited by Morgan and Tennesen ofHDR to survey dirt access roads intersecting the site. They identified . some shell in the access roads, but vegetation next to the roads was dense and no other artifacts were identified. Recon conducted an evaluation of the site and based on the absence of site integrity and limited artifact density and diversity, they determined the site was not significant. SDI-10025 was recorded in 1978 by Ken Hedges, initially as W-133, as a general surface scatter of shell, flaked stone, and fire-cracked rock, with the dense midden deposits having a very high shell content. Three loci are identified within the site. The site was reportedly visited earlier by Malcolm Rogers, who reported a sweat house associated with the site. Hedges was unable to re-locate this feature possibly due to a massive earth cut in Locus A. The initial site record for SDI-13124 is the same site record prepared by Ken Hedges from 1978 for SDI-10025. There is a scantly detailed site record from 1967 by Prewitt, Allan, and Stahl that lists a bifacial mano, a core, four pot sherds, 24 flakes, a broken cobble fragment, a unifacial hand stone, another possible hand stone, and some clear glass at the site. An EIR by Phillips Brant Reddick documents that SDI-10025/13124 was severely impacted and no longer retains integrity, and that no significant impact would occur from a 26-acre project that is now complete. Expansion Segment 7 ES 7 consists of 4-in.-to 8-in.-diameter pipelines that will provide service to a homeowners association, and existing school landscaping at MiraCosta College in Oceanside. The proposed alignment for ES 7 runs along Tamarack A venue, Chatham Road, Andover A venue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Drive. SDI-5601 was originally recorded in 1977 as covering an area of 3 acres (Figure 4 in Confidential Attachment B). Four concentrations of cultural material were noted, including ground stone and flaked stone artifacts, fire-affected rock, and shell. A testing and data recovery program was conducted by Recon on the south half of the site prior to the residential development and impacts to the site were considered mitigated to below a level of significance (Hector 1983). The northern half of the site was also recently tested by ASM in 2011 and determined to be not significant. Storage Tank D An additional recycled water storage is proposed at the existing "Twin D" tank site. This will include either constructing a new 1.5-MG steel tank adjacent to the two existing tanks or relocating an existing 1.5-MG steel tank to the site. Construction would include an at-grade concrete ring wall to support the 1.5-MG tank. SDI-6819 intersects the proposed location for the storage tank (Figure 5 in Confidential Attachment B). This site was first recorded in 197 8 by Jay Thesken. The site reportedly consisted of three scrapers, one core, two choppers, and two Tizon Brownware sherds, as well as a moderate scatter of shell on a gentle contoured hilltop. In 1992, the northwest portion of the site was tested by Danielle Huey of Gallegos & Associates prior to construction of several tanks and pads. The artifacts recovered included 27 piec~s of debitage, one retouched flake, one scraper, three cores, one core tool, one hammer stone, two hand stones, nine hand stone fragments, one ground stone with battering, and 11 pot sherds. The site was determined to be a Late Prehistoric temporary camp where mainly shellfish processing and seed grinding occurred. The northwest portion of the site that was tested (which includes the currently proposed Tank D location) was determined to be not significant by Gallegos & Associates (also see Daniels and Becker 2014). July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 205 of 223 March 26, 2018 Page 7 of7 References Daniels, James T. and Mark S. Becker 2014 Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Phase III Recycled Water Project. ASM Affiliates, Inc. On file at the South Coast Information Center. Hector, Susan M. 1983 Archaeological Excavation of SDI-5601/SDM-W-1293, Carlsbad, California. Recon, San Diego. On file at the South Coast Information Center. Attachments: Attachment A Project Maps Figure 1. Regional project location map showing appended segments of ES 5, ES 7, Tank D, and Potable Water Pipelines. Figure 2. The 1 :24,000 scale location map with prior and appended segments of ES 5 and ES 7, along with the Potable Water Pipelines. Figure 3. The 1 :24,000 scale project location map showing the updated location of Tank D. Attachment B Confidential Resource Maps Figure 4. Archaeological sites within a Y4 mile of appended segments of ES 5 and ES 7, along with the Potable Water Pipelines. Figure 5. Archaeological sites within a Y4 mile of the updated location of Tank D. July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 207 of 223 Addendum: CMWD Class I Inventory ATTACHMENT A Project Maps Attachment A July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 208 of 223 E1 -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FEDERAL COORDINATION ATTACHMENTS Check the box next to each item to indicate which supporting attachments you have provided with your application. The supporting documents must be provided unless it is not applicable. ~ E1 .1 -Clean Air Act • Air quality modeling data • Complete air emissions chart (see Evaluation Form below) • General conformity and/or air quality studies, as applicable D E1 .2 -Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA) • Consultation record for CBRA resources in the vicinity of the project area with the USFWS, if applicable D E1 .3 -Coastal Zone Management Act • Copy of coastal zone permit or coastal exemption, if applicable ~ E1 .4 -Endangered Species Act • Up-to-date (less than one year old) USFWS, CDFW Natural Diversity Database, and CNPS species lists • Project-level biological resources and habitat evaluation including field survey and species lists review • Record of federal consultation and correspondence, if applicable D E1 .5 -Environmental Justice • Consultation record for the affected areas with the USEPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, if applicable D E1 .6 -Farmland Protection Policy Act • Assessment of the conversion of prime/unique farmland and farmland of statewide/local importance to non-agricultural uses, if applicable • Assessment of Williamson Act lands converted and/or affected, if applicable • Consultation with USDA and correspondence, if applicable ~ E1.7-Flood Plain Management • FEMA flood mapping of the project area, if applicable • Assessment of flood hazard and drainage pattern alteration, if applicable ~ E1 .8 -National Historical Preservation Act • Cultural Resources Report (with less than one year old record search, extending to a half-mile beyond the project area of potential effects [APE] on historic properties consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requirements D E1 .9 -Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act • Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the State Water Board's consultation with the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, if applicable • Please see regulation E1 .4 above for EFH Assessment requirements ~ E1 .1 O -Migratory Bird Treaty Act • List of migratory birds including avoidance measures, if applicable D E1 .11 -Protection of Wetlands • Copy of 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if applicable • Copy of 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), if applicable • Wetland delineation and survey assessment, if applicable D E1 .12 -Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection • Consultation record with the USEPA Region 9 Ground Water Office, if applicable D E1 .13 -Wild and Scenic Rivers Act • Consultation record with the USDA Forest Service Region 5 Office, if applicable Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Page 2 of 1 O Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 213 of 223 Attachment E1 Evaluation Form for Environmental Review and Federal Coordination Applicant Name: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Project Title: Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project 1. Clean Air Act: Air Basin Name: San Diego Air Basin Local Air District for Project Area: San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Is this project subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformity determination? D No -The project is in an attainment or unclassified area for all federal criteria pollutants. 18:1 Yes -The project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject to maintenance plans for a federal criteria pollutant. Include information to indicate the nonattainment designation (e.g., moderate, serious, severe, or extreme), if applicable. If estimated emissions (below) are above the federal de minimis levels, but the project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved SIP for air quality, then quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction and operation would be below federal de minimis levels for all pollutants. • The Lead Agency shall provide the estimated project construction and operational air emissions (in tons per year) in the chart below, and attach supporting calculations, regardless of attainment status. • Also, attach any air quality studies that have been done for the project. (HELIX 2018a, 2013a) Pollutant Ozone (03) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)/ Reactive Organic Gases (ROGl Lead (Pb) Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.sl Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM1ol Sulfur Dioxide (S02) Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Federal Status (Attainment, Nonattainment Rates Nonattainment, (i.e., moderate, serious, Maintenance, or severe, or extreme) Unclassified) Nonattainment Marginal Maintenance -- See ozone above See ozone above See ozone above See ozone above Attainment -- Attainment/ --Unclassifiable Unclassified -- Attainment -- Page 3 of 10 Threshold of Significance for Construction Operation Project Air Basin Emissions Emissions (if applicable) (tons/year) (tons/year) See voe and NOx See voe and NOx See voe and NOx below below below 550 pounds per day; 5 0 100 tons per vear 250 pounds per day; 7 0 40 tons per vear 75 pounds per day; 1 0 13. 7 tons per year 3.2 pounds per day; ---0.6 tons per year 55 pounds per day; 10 tons per year 1 0 1 00 pounds per day; 5 0 15 tons per year 250 pounds per day; 0 0 40 tons Per vear Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 214 of 223 2. Coastal Barriers Resources Act: Will the project impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near-shore waters? Note that since there is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in California, p'rojects located in California are not expected to impact the Coastal Barrier Resources System in other states. If there is a special circumstance in which the project may impact a Coastal Barrier Resource System, indicate your reasoning below. ~ No -The project will not affect or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near-shore w~ters, explain: The project is located within California. There is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in California. D Yes -Describe the project location with respect to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and the status of any consultation with the appropriate Coastal Zone management agency and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service: 3. Coastal Zone Management Act: Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone? D No -The project is not within the coastal zone, explain: . ~ Yes -Describe the project location with respect to coastal areas and the status of the coastal zone permit, and provide a copy of the coastal zone permit or coastal exemption: The new storage tank location and the Palisades potable water pipelines are located within the Coastal Zone. The new pipeline extensions for Segment 5 and 7 and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines are located outside of the Coastal Zone. Development within the coastal zone boundaries is subject to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance, and the California Coastal Act (CCA) and would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The city's LCP was approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1996 and the latest amendment was approved in 2016. The city acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects within its coastal zone, with a few exceptions. There are areas of "deferred certification" where the state retains its permitting authority. All projects in the coastal zone would require review for consistency with the LCP and CCA prior to issuance of a CDP, which would occur once preliminary design drawings are prepared. This would ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the LCP; individual components would require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. The storage tank and pipelines that occur within the Coastal Zone would not adversely affect or impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or other protected coastal resources identified within the approved city's LCP. The proposed modifications would not conflict with the city's LCP, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. 4. Endangered Species Act (ESA): Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? • Required documents: Attach project-level biological surveys, evaluations analyzing the project's direct and indirect effects on special-status species, and an up-to-date species list (less than one year old from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Natural Diversity Database and the California Native Plant Society) for the project area. (HELIX 2018b, HELIX 2013b) D No -Discuss why the project will not affect any federally listed special status species: ~ Yes -Provide information on federally listed species that could potentially be affected by this project and any proposed avoidance and compensation measures so that the State Water Board can initiate informal/formal consultation with the applicable federally designated agency. Explain any previous ESA consultations /coordination conducted with the National Marine Fisheries Service or USFWS for the project: The proposed modifications do not directly impact federally listed species, and are not likely to result in indirect impacts to these species. Further, none of the proposed modifications occur within undeveloped areas supporting naturalized habitat and designated by the USFWS as Critical Habitat for federally listed species. None of the sites support the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for any federally listed species. Therefore, the proposed modifications will have no effect on Critical Habitat. Further discussion is provided below reQardinQ potential effects of the proposed modifications on federally listed species. Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Page 4 of 10 Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 215 of 223 Federally Listed Plant Species: None of the 12 listed plant species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013b) has been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the Segment 5 extensions, or within the storage tank location. No listed plant species were observed during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Listed plant species are not likely to occur in or near the proposed modifications. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects on federally listed plant species are anticipated to occur as a result of proposed modifications. Federally-Listed Animal Species: None of the nine listed animal species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013b) has been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the proposed modification sites. No listed animal species were observed or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers, tracks, scat, etc.) during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Therefore, none of the nine listed animal species has the potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves, and no direct effects would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. However, six of the nine federally listed species have a potential to occur within off-site habitat located in the immediate vicinity (i.e., at locations within 100 feet) of the proposed modifications locations, as follows: • San Diego fairy shrimp has low potential to occur within the temporarily ponded area located on the graded development pad, within 100 feet of the proposed storage tank location. • Coastal California gnatcatcher has the potential to nest within off-site coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland, to the west of Tamarack Avenue along the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension. • Least Bell's vireo has the potential to nest within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in the area in 2015. • Light-footed clapper rail is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in 2007. • Southwestern willow flycatcher is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a temporary migrant within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the area in 1984. • Western snowy plover is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a wintering resident within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in 1995, but is presumed extirpated. Potential indirect effects on federally-listed animal species from construction of the proposed modifications could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition, construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may support federally listed animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction; however, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District has committed to daytime construction hours and construction of the proposed modifications would not require the use of nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into sensitive biological areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant. Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas could be potentially adverse and significant on federally listed species only if construction would occur during the breeding season and if the species would be nesting in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. As identified above, coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo represent the only federally listed species with potential to nest in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. Indirect effects on San Diego fairy shrimp could also occur as a result of construction equipment and personnel entering into sensitive basin habitat. Potentially adverse indirect effects would not be anticipated to occur to federally listed species within the potential to forage (only) within adjacent habitat, such as the light-footed clapper rail , southwestern willow flycatcher, and western snowy plover. Species with the potential to forage (only) would only be expected to use the adjacent habitat temporarily and would be able to relocate into alternative foraging areas without being harmed. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F, included in the Adopted IS/MND (Atkins 2012), would reduce potentially adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting federally listed species to less than significant levels. These measures include: Bio- 1A, Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors; Bio-1B, Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys; Bio-1C, Orange Construction Fencing; Bio-10, Construction-Related Noise; Bio-1 E, Construction Staging Areas; and Bio-1 F, Contractor Training. With the implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect nesting federally listed species and the project would be in conformance with the ESA. Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Page 5 of 10 Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 216 of 223 5. Environmental Justice: Does the project involve an activity that is likely to be of particular interest to or have particular impact upon minority, low- income, or indigenous populations, or tribes? ~ No -Selecting "No" means that this action is not likely to be of any particular interest to or have an effect on these populations or tribes, explain: The proposed modifications include a storage tank relocation within an existing Carlsbad Municipal Water District site and minor pipeline extensions. These infrastructure modifications would be located within existing disturbed and developed roadway and utility rights-of-way and would not affect minority, low-income, indigenous populations, or tribes. Local Native American tribes were contacted as part of Section 106 compliance for the Adopted IS/MND (see Item #8 of this checklist). 0 Yes -If you answer yes, please check at least one of the boxes and provide a brief explanation below: 0 The project is likely to affect the health of these populations. 0 The project is likely to affect the environmental conditions of these populations. D The project is likely to present an opportunity to address an existing disproportionate impact of these populations. 0 The project is likely to result in the collection of information or data that could be used to assess potential impacts on the health or environmental conditions of these populations. 0 The project is likely to affect the availability of information to these populations. 0 Other reasons (please describe): 6. Farmland Protection Policy Act: Is any portion of the project located on important farmland? ~ No -The project will not affect protected farmland. Explain: The alignment for the proposed modifications does not contain mapped Prime or Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, or Grazing Land. There are no Williamson Act lands within the project alignment. D Yes -Include information on the acreage that would be converted from important farmland to other uses . Indicate if any portion of the project boundaries is under a Williamson Act Contract and specify the amount of acreage affected: 7. Flood Plain Management: Is any portion of the project located within a 100-year floodplain as depicted on a floodplain map or otherwise designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency? • Required documents: Attach a floodplain map. 0 No -Provide a description of the project location with respect to streams and potential floodplains: ~ Yes -Describe the floodplain, and include a floodplains/wetlands assessment. Describe any measures and/or project design modifications that would minimize or avoid flood damage by the project: The 100-year FEMA floodplain map is attached to this document as Figure 1. No proposed modifications are located within 100-year floodplains. •. 8. National Historic Preservation Act: Identify the area of potential effects (APE) with both cartographic and textual descriptions, including construction, staging areas, and depth of any excavation. (Note: the APE is three dimensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the project, including the surface area and extending below ground to the depth of any project excavations). • Required documents: Attach a copy of a Cultural Resources Report prepared by a qualified professional that includes a current records search (less than one year old, extending to a half-mile beyond the project APE), with maps showing all sites and surveys drawn in relation to the project area, records of Native American consultation, and a consultation letter for the State Water Board to use for consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2018). Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Page 6 of 10 Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 217 of 223 A Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared in 2014 by ASM Affiliates Inc., after adoption of the IS/MND, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the CEQA Plus analysis. ASM sent letters to a list of tribes provided by the Native American Heritage Commission to inquire about any issues of cultural concern regarding the project area for the Adopted IS/MND and no responses were received. An Addendum Report to the Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared by ASM Affiliates Inc. in 2018 to analyze the cultural resource sensitivity of the proposed modifications. The Addendum Report determined that cultural resources within SDl-6139 (Segment 5 and Flower Fields potable water pipelines) were no longer identified as significant in recent surveys due tb absence of site integrity and limited artifact density and diversity. In a recent survey, SDl-10025 (Segment 5) was determined to be severely impacted by previous activities and would not have significant cultural resources. SDl-5601 (Segment 7) has previously undergone a testing and data recovery program due to residential development in the area, and a recent survey determined the rest of the site to not have significant cultural resources. SDl-6819, located near the storage tank site, had undergone artifact recovery prior to construction of the existing tanks and pads on site. This site was recently tested and determined to not contain significant cultural resources. In addition, the proposed modifications would implement the cultural resource procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND (Atkins 2012), which includes retaining a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor if subsurface cultural resources are encountered or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered. Further, the proposed modifications would provide archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas that intersect with known archaeological sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts to cultural resources from the proposed modifications. Parts of Segment 5 and Segment 7 were identified as being within a high paleontological sensitivity area; therefore, the Segment 5 and Segment 7 extensions may be in these areas. However, as with the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would occur within existing roadway ROW that has already been disturbed, and significant impacts from the proposed modifications would not occur. Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would implement the required protocols under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.97 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 if human remains are encountered; therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant. Given the aforementioned, the proposed modifications would be consistent with the NHPA. 9. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may adversely affect essential fish habitat? 12:1 No -Discuss why the project will not affect essential fish habitat: The proposed modifications would be constructed within disturbed and/or developed upland areas that lack marine resources and Essential Fish Habitat regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No Essential Fish Habitat occurs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat and would be in conformance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. D Yes -Provide information on essential fish habitat that could potentially be affected by this project and any proposed avoidance and compensation measures. Explain any previous consultations/coordination conducted with the National Marine Fisheries Service for the project: 10. Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Will the project affect protected migratory birds that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? D No -Provide an explanation below. 12:1 Yes -Discuss the impacts (such as noise and vibration impacts, modification of habitat) to migratory birds that may be directly or indirectly affected by the project and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Include a list of all migratory birds that could occur where the project is located: The proposed modifications would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of developed and undeveloped areas characterized by trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings, water tanks, etc.) that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common and sensitive bird species, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Common bird species with the potential to nest in the vicinity of project components include species such as California towhee (Me/ozone crissa/is), song sparrow (Me/ospiza melodia), black phoebe (Sayomis nigricans), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos); house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna's hummingbird (Ca!ypte anna), American crow (Corvus brachvrhvnchos), mournina dove (Zenaida macroura), and Bullock's oriole Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Page 7 of 10 Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 218 of 223 (lcterus bullocki1). Sensitive bird species with the potential to nest include federally listed species such as coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo, in addition to non-listed sensitive species such as southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza be/Ii be/11), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperi1). Indirect effects could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest (or nests on man-made structures), such that the disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. These potential adverse effects on nesting birds and raptors would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1A (Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors) of the Adopted IS/MND (Atkins 2012), the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 11 .. Protection of Wetlands: Does any portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers? D No -Provide the basis for such a determination: ~ Yes -qescribe the affect to wetlands, potential wetland areas, and other surface waters, and the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. Provide the status of the permit and information on permit requirements: No portions of the proposed modification boundaries contain any areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from USACE. The proposed modifications would be constructed entirely within upland areas that do not support wetlands or other waters of the U.S. subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of USACE. Therefore, no direct effects to federally protected wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would occur. Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad located within the reclaimed water tank facility. Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this area would not be considered federally jurisdictional. The new pipeline sections would be constructed entirely within existing roads designed with curb, gutter, and storm drain features to accommodate stormwater. Therefore, runoff from these would .enter into existing storm drain facilities, which may discharge into nearby wetlands. For example, the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension is located within a shopping center built just east of Buena Vista Lagoon and south of Buena Vista Creek. The storage tank would be constructed on a graded development pad, which has a small berm at the downslope edge to restrict water runoff. Potential indirect effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may occur if runoff from construction work areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that discharge into downstream wetland areas. Potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other protective measures incorporated into the project as mandatory requirements for regulatory compliance. These include acquisition of a Storm Water General Permit and General Linear Utility Permit, in addition to compliance with local development standards, including the preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and application of appropriate BMPs. Construction activities would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4 permit). Proposed modifications not falling within the coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For proposed modifications covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the Carlsbad Municipal Water District would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a SWPPP prescribing BMPs, monitoring, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms, straw wattles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from enterinQ storm water runoff, and may include measures to minimize project Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Page 8 of 10 Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 219 of 223 disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the following: • Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized. • Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping. • Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels. • Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the proposed modifications and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents. • Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are detained (e.g., siltation basins). Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1 B, Bio-1 C, Bio-1 E, and Bio-1 F would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the incorporation of the above-referenced protective measures, the project would not result in any adverse effects on federally protected wetlands and would be in conformance with the CWA. 12. Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection: Is the project located in an area designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, as a Sole Source Aquifer? 1:8] No -The project is not within the boundaries of a sole source aquifer. (EPA 2015) D Yes -Identify the sole source aquifer (e.g., Santa Margarita Aquifer, Scott's Valley, the Fresno County Aquifer, the Campo/Cottonwood Creek Aquifer or the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Aquifer) that will be affected: 13. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Identify watershed where the .project is located: Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river? • Required documents: Attach a map if any portion of the project is located within a wild and scenic river watershed. 1:8] No -The project will not affect a wild and scenic river. Explain: The project is not located within or adjacent to a wild and scenic river (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2018). D Yes -Identify the wild and scenic river watershed and project location relative to the affected wild and scenic river: Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Page 9 of 10 Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 220 of 223 References ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2018. Addendum Report: Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for Amendments to Segments 5 and 7 and the D Tank Site for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (ASM Project No. 20460). January 7. Atkins. 2012. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. November 14. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Pacific Southwest, Region 9, Ground Water, Sole Source Aquifer. https://archive.epa.gov/region9/water/archive/web/html/ssa.html. Last updated on September 9, 2015. HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2018a. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, Addendum to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. February 21. HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2018b. Addendum Report to the Biological Resources Study and Adopted ISIMND findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. February 21. HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2013a. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project SRF Project Air Quality Conformity Analysis. May 14. HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2013b. Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application, Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 15. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2018. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Website. http://www.rivers.gov/index.php. Accessed on March 5, 2018. Financial Assistance Application (REV. 02/2014) Page 10 of 1 O Environmental Package July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 221 of 223