Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2018-0011; RECYCLED WATER PHASE III PIPELINE SEGMENT 5; ADDENDUM TO THE CMWD PHASE III - FINAL INITIAL STUDY- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EIA 12-02; 2018-03-30Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Addendum to the Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration EIA12-02 March 30, 2018 | KJC-27 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 ADDENDUM TO THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT PHASE III 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 CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project i March 2018 Addendum TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 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 III Recycled Water Project ii March 2018 Addendum LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page 1 Pipeline Improvements .................................................................................................................... 2 2 Storage Tank Relocation .................................................................................................................. 2 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS No. Title A CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND B Biological Resources Study Addendum C Cultural Resource Inventory Addendum CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 1 March 2018 Addendum 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 III 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 III 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 III proposed expanding the treatment capacity within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. In addition, Phase III 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 of the 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 1.5-million gallon (MG) storage tank is proposed to be located on the vacant, pre-graded pad southeast of the existing 8.5 MG storage tank on the D Tank site, near Black Rail Road (see Figure 2, Storage Tank Relocation). The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 2 March 2018 Addendum 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. Cannon RoadE l C a mi n o Re al C arls b a d Villa g e D rive Hig hla n d Drive A¸ M a r r o n R o a d Marron Road Tam arack AvenueTamarack AvenueTama ra ck Avenue !"^$ Segment 5 Segment 5 Flower FieldsNeighborhood Carlsbad PalisadesNeighborhood Segment 7 Figure 1Pipeline ImprovementsI:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-27_Carlsbad_MWD\Map\IS_MND\Fig1_PipelineImprove.mxd KJC-27 3/29/2018 -RPSource: Aerial Photo (SanGIS, 2014) Project Features (Kennedy Jenks 2017)K Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND 0 2,000 Feet Segment 5 2012 Alignment Proposed Modification to Segment 5 Segment 7 2012 Alignment Proposed Modification to Segment 7 Proposed Potable Water Alignments New Proposed Tank Former Proposed Tank F i s h e r m a nDriveBlack Rail RoadSitio CedrelaTriton Street New Crest Court Poinsettia Lane Figure 2Storage Tank RelocationI:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-27_Carlsbad_MWD\Map\IS_MND\Fig2_StorageTankRelocation.mxd KJC-27 12/11/2017 -RPSource: Aerial Photo (SanGIS, 2014)K Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND 0 150 Feet Proposed Access Road Inlet/Outlet Piping New Proposed Tank Location Drain 2012 Proposed Tank Location CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 3 March 2018 Addendum 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 IS/MND. Prior to its consideration of the proposed modifications, the CMWD will review and consider this Addendum together with the Adopted IS/MND when making a decision regarding the proposed modifications. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 4 March 2018 Addendum 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 of the 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 III Recycled Water Project 5 March 2018 Addendum Adopted IS/MND and related MMRP. This environmental analysis is subject to all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Adopted IS/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 IS/MND, Section 1, pages IS-22 through IS-23. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that expansion and relocation of the storage tank site would not result in temporary construction impacts because it would be isolated from public view. The Adopted IS/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 IS/MND, the CMWD committed to the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/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 IS/MND. As the pipelines will be installed below-ground, no visual impacts would occur after construction. Similar to the Adopted IS/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 of the Adopted IS/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 of the 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 IS/MND and would likely maintain a similar visibility from New Crest Court and Black Rail CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 6 March 2018 Addendum 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 IS/MND. As with the pipeline extensions in the Adopted IS/MND, the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/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 IS/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 III Recycled Water Project 7 March 2018 Addendum 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 IS/MND, and no substantial new agricultural or forestry resources 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 of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 3, pages IS-25 through IS-28. These sections outline how the Approved Project may impact existing and future air quality conditions. For the criteria pollutant emissions analysis, the Adopted IS/MND relied on the emission calculations within the Program EIR, which included the Phase III 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 IS/MND. With implementation of these construction features, the Adopted IS/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 IS/MND concluded that impacts to air quality as a result of construction and operation of the 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 IS/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 IS/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 III Recycled Water Project 8 March 2018 Addendum features for air quality, as listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/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 IS/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 IS/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 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 air quality. No substantial changes to air quality circumstances have occurred since adoption of the IS/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 IS/MND, Section 4, pages IS-28 through IS-35. A focused biological resources study was also prepared in 2013 by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX), after adoption of the IS/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 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 Adopted 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 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-1A through Bio-1F for special-status wildlife species impacts and Bio-1B through Bio-1F for sensitive natural communities and wetlands impacts. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 9 March 2018 Addendum 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-1A through Bio-1F. Construction of the 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-1A. 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 III 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-1A through Bio-1F, 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- 1B, Bio-1C, Bio-1E, and Bio-1F 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 III Recycled Water Project 10 March 2018 Addendum The Segment 7 extension and 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-1A through Bio-1F 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-1B, Bio-1C, Bio-1E, and Bio-1F 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 III Recycled Water Project 11 March 2018 Addendum 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 of the 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 [SDI-10025]; one site intersecting both the Segment 5 extension and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines [SDI-6139]; one site intersecting the storage tank [SDI-6819]; and one site intersecting the Segment 7 extension [SDI-5601]). The Addendum Report determined that cultural resources within SDI-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, SDI-10025 (Segment 5) was determined to be severely impacted and would not have significant cultural resources. SDI-5601 CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 12 March 2018 Addendum (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. SDI-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, 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 of the proposed CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 13 March 2018 Addendum 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 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 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 III Recycled Water Project 14 March 2018 Addendum 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 IS/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 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 geological resources which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/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 IS/MND, Section 7, pages IS-40 through IS-41. For the GHG emissions analysis, the Adopted IS/MND relied on the GHG emission calculations within the Master Plans Program EIR (CMWD, EIR 12-01, 2012b), which included the Phase III 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 CO2e) per year. This value did not exceed the 2,500 MT CO2e 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 IS/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 III Recycled Water Project 15 March 2018 Addendum GHG emissions under the conservative scenario were well below the 2,500 MT CO2e 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 IS/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 IS/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 IS/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 IS/MND-identified mitigation measures of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 8, pages IS-42 through IS-46. The Adopted IS/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 IS/MND (Section 8.d) identified approximately 50 recorded hazardous waste sites along all Phase III pipeline alignments, except for Segment 7. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that Segment 7 and the storage tank would not result in a significant impact 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 IS/MND mitigation measures Haz-1 (excavation monitoring) and Haz-2 (construction worker health and safety work plan). The Adopted IS/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 IS/MND, CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 16 March 2018 Addendum 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 of the 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 III Recycled Water Project 17 March 2018 Addendum Hydrology/Water Quality Previous Analysis Analysis of hydrology/water quality impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 9, pages IS-47 through IS-51. The Adopted IS/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 IS/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 IS/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 IS/MND. In addition, if dewatering is required for the proposed modifications, the modifications would comply with the NPDES 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 hydrology or water quality conditions 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 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 III Recycled Water Project 18 March 2018 Addendum 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 IS/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 IS/MND, Section 10, pages IS-51 through IS-52. The Adopted IS/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 IS/MND) this conflict would be less than significant. The Adopted IS/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 IS/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 IS/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 IS/MND did not state this. As concluded by the Adopted IS/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 of the 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 III Recycled Water Project 19 March 2018 Addendum 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 III Recycled Water Project 20 March 2018 Addendum 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 new 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 of the pipeline projects and storage tank would be passive and would not result in permanent increases in the ambient noise environment. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 21 March 2018 Addendum 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 of the 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 III Recycled Water Project 22 March 2018 Addendum Population and Housing Previous Analysis Analysis of population and housing impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 13, page IS-56. The Adopted IS/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 IS/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 modifications. 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 IS/MND, Section 14, page IS-57. The Adopted IS/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 facilities. 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 III Recycled Water Project 23 March 2018 Addendum 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 of the 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 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 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 III Recycled Water Project 24 March 2018 Addendum 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 of the 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/MND. 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 III Recycled Water Project 25 March 2018 Addendum 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-1A through Bio-1F, the biological resource impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 26 March 2018 Addendum 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-1A through Bio-1F, 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-1A through Bio-1F, 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-1A through Bio-1F, 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 IS/MND satisfies CEQA requirements for the proposed modifications described herein. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project 27 March 2018 Addendum 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 III 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 III 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 III Recycled Water Project. May 2013. 2012a. CMWD Phase III 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 III Recycled Water Project. March 30, 2018. Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project. May 2013. Attachment A CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration EIA 12-02 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 Prepared for: Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared by: 3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 Atkins Project No.: 100024978 CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page i September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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 .................................................................................. IS-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 .................................................................................... IS-73 Figure 1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... IS-4 Figure 2 Phase III Recycled Water Project Facility Locations.......................................................... IS-5 Figure 3 Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion .................................................................... IS-7 Figure 4 Expansion Segment 1A ..................................................................................................... IS-9 Figure 5 Expansion Segment 2 ..................................................................................................... IS-10 Figure 6 Expansion Segment 4A ................................................................................................... IS-11 Figure 7 Expansion Segment 5 ..................................................................................................... IS-12 Figure 8 Expansion Segment 7 ..................................................................................................... IS-13 Figure 9 Expansion Segment 8 ..................................................................................................... IS-14 Figure 10 Expansion Segment 9 ..................................................................................................... IS-15 Figure 11 Expansion Segment 18 ................................................................................................... IS-16 Figure 12 Proposed Storage Tank Location .................................................................................... IS-18 Figure 13 Phase III Indirect Biology Map ........................................................................................ IS-31 Table 1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................... IS-19 Table 2 Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction ............................................ IS-26 Table 3 Phase III Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species ..................................... IS-30 Table 4 City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards ................................................................... IS-54 Appendices A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features B Biological Resources Letter Report CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page ii September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 This page intentionally left blank. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page MND-1 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration Case Number: EIA 12-02 Project Title: Phase III Recycled Water Project Project Location The Phase III Recycled Water Project (Phase III 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 east 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 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 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the Carlsbad Water Recycling FacilityCWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase III 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 1BMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page MND-2 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area (see Figure 2). Determination The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an Earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated "Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTEST: November 27, 2012 pursuant to CMWD Resolution No. 1455. _______________________________________________ MATT HALL President, Carlsbad Municipal Water District COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-i November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT IS/MND AND RESPONSES All comments received on the Draft IS/MND have been coded to facilitate identi fi cati on and tracking. The City of Carlsbad received eight comment lett ers on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period that began on September 19, 2012 and closed on October 18, 2012. The comment lett ers on the Draft IS/ MND are listed in Table 1 below. Each of the comment lett ers were reviewed and divided into individual comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern. Where a lett er comments on more than one issue, each individual comment issue is numbered (A-1, for example) and a specifi c response is included for each issue. Table 1. Comment Lett ers Received on Draft IS/MND Commentor Date AScott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit October 19, 2012 B Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Nati ve American Heritage Commission September 24, 2012 C Jacob Armstrong, Chief, Development Review Branch, Department of Transportati on September 24, 2012 DRafi q Ahmed, Project Manager, Brownfi elds and Environmental Restorati on Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control October 9, 2012 E Ahmad Kashkoli, Senior Environmental Scienti st, State Water Resources Control Board October 17, 2012 F James W. Royle, Jr., Chairperson, Environmental Review Committ ee, San Diego County Archaeological Society September 28, 2012 G Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera October 16, 2012 H Paul J. Bushee, General Manager, Leucadia Wastewater District October 19, 2012 RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-1November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESA-1.LETTER A. STATE CLEARINGHOUSEA-1. The two comment lett ers from the State Clearinghouse state that the City of Carlsbad has complied with the State Clearinghouse requirements for the review of draft environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public review period for the IS/MND extended from September 19, 2012 unti l October 18, 2012. Three comment lett ers were received from State agencies during the public review period: the Nati ve American Heritage Commission (lett er B), the Department of Transportati on (lett er C), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (lett er D). Additi onally, one lett er from a state agency was received following the close of the public review period: the State Water Resources Control Board (lett er E). RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-2November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-3November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-4November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESB-1.B-2.LETTER B. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION B-1. The fi rst comment introduces the lett er and states the role of the Nati ve American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as a protector of California’s Nati ve American Cultural Resources. The comment describes the defi niti on of ‘signifi cant eff ect’ related to archaeological resources per CEQA guidelines; recommends an NAHC Sacred Lands File Search because the Area of Potenti al Eff ect for projects components are known to be very cultural sensiti ve; and states that Sacred Sites, as defi ned by the California Public Resources Code, and items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confi denti al. Secti on 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural resources records search performed by Atkins at the South Coastal Informati on 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 Potenti al Eff ect of the proposed Phase III project. A NAHC SLF search was conducted for the Master Plans EIR. The search identi fi ed known archaeological resources throughout the CMWD service area; however, the project components would be constructed in previously disturbed areas. B-2. This comment recommends consultati on with an att ached list of Nati ve American contacts. Secti on 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 Secti on 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. Additi onally, lett ers to each of the tribal contacts identi fi ed by NAHC in its February 15, 2012 lett er, submitt ed during the Noti ce of Preparati on (NOP) comment period, were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. The lett ers sent to the tribal contacts described the proposed project that contained maps of the proposed CIP locati ons, and requested informati on about the SLF-listed resources, as well as informati on about any resources not listed in the SLF for inclusion in this report. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-5November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESB-2. cont.B-3.B-4.B-5.B-6.B-7.B-3. This comment recommends consultati on with tribes and interested Nati ve American parti es, in compliance with NEPA and Secti on 106 of the Nati onal Historic Preservati on Act (NHPA). The proposed project does not involve a federal acti on or federal agency and is therefore not subject to the requirements of NEPA or Secti on 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 consultati on with tribes and interested Nati ve Americans in compliance with NEPA and Secti on 106 of the NHPA. As discussed in response to comment B-2, lett ers to each of the tribal contacts identi fi ed by NAHC during the 2012 Master Plans EIR NOP comment period, which included the Phase III Project components, were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. B-4. This comment describes the requirements for confi denti ality related to historic properti es of religious and cultural signifi cance. The IS/MND recognizes these requirements; therefore, no sensiti ve informati on related to any cultural resources was disclosed in the IS/MND. B-5. This comment describes regulati ons that outline procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of human remains. As discussed in Secti on 5 d) of IS checklist, the procedures detailed in PRC Secti on 5097.98 and California State Health and Safety Code Secti on 7050.5 would be implemented in the event of unintenti onal disturbance of human remains.B-6. This comment is related to consultati on with Nati ve American representati ves. Tribal contacts were consulted as part of preparati on of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which included the Phase III Project components. Refer to response to comment B-2 for additi onal informati on.B-7. This comment describes the CEQA recommendati on to avoid Nati ve American cultural sites and/or Nati ve American burial sites. Avoidance has already been incorporated in the project by locati ng the Phase III Project components in previously disturbed areas, such as within existi ng roadways and the developed South La Costa Golf Course. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-6November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-7November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-8November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-9November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-10November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESC-1.LETTER C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)C-1. This comment states that any uti lity crossings of freeways will need an encroachment permit from Caltrans and provides sources of informati on 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 potenti ally be required for Phase III Project component ES 5 that proposes constructi on on either side of State Route 78. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-11November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESD-1.LETTER D. DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROLD-1. This comment states that the IS/MND should evaluate whether conditi ons within the project area may pose a threat to human health or the environment, and recommends a list of databases of regulatory agencies. Hazards and hazardous materials are evaluated in Secti on 8 of the IS checklist. A records search was conducted for the proposed project in February 2012, as described in Secti on 8 (d) of the IS checklist, and included the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases, as recommended by the comment. The GeoTracker Database identi fi ed approximately 50 recorded sites along the Phase III project alignments and one near the Carlsbad Wastewater Recycling Facility (CWRF). Open cases involving leaking underground storage tank and cleanup sites are concentrated near McClellan-Palomar Airport and gas stati ons along El Camino Real. The EnviroStor database identi fi ed one permitt ed hazardous materials facility (Cabrillo Power Plant) and one cleanup site along ES 2, one permitt ed facility (Vista Industrial Products) and one school site investi gati on along ES 4A, and one site evaluati on of a dry cleaning facility along ES 9. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-12November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESD-1. cont.D-2.D-3.D-4.D-2. This comment states that the IS/MND should identi fy the mechanism to initi ate any required investi gati on or remediati on within potenti ally contaminated areas. Secti on (d) of the IS checklist already identi fi es this mechanism through miti gati on measures Haz-1 and Haz-2. Miti gati on measure Haz-1 requires constructi on monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditi ons for the potenti al 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. Miti gati on measure Haz-2 requires a constructi on worker health and safety plan that would include a descripti on 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 excavati ng contaminated soil from the constructi on area. The engineering controls shall be provided in the work plan and submitt ed to the DEH for approval.D-3. This comment states that any environmental investi gati ons, sampling, and/or remediati on should be conducted under a workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency. As described in response to comment D-2, miti gati on measure Haz-2 requires a constructi on worker health and safety plan that would be submitt ed 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 miti gati on measure Haz-1.D-4. This comment states that if demoliti on would be required, an investi gati on should be conducted for the presence of hazardous materials. The proposed project would not require demoliti on of any buildings. Existi ng roadway pavement may be removed to install pipeline; however these paved areas do not contain mercury or asbestos containing materials. Miti gati on measure Haz-1 requires constructi on monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditi ons for the potenti al 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. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-13November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESD-4. cont.D-5.D-6.D-7.D-8.D-9.D-5. This comment states that contaminated soil may be encountered and should be properly disposed. Consistent with the recommendati ons of this comment, miti gati on measure Haz-1 requires constructi on monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditi ons for the potenti al 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.D-6. 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 constructi on. An appropriate assessment is already included in the IS/MND. Hazards and hazardous materials are evaluated in Secti on 8 of the IS checklist, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. A records search was conducted for the proposed project in February 2012, as described in Secti on 8 d) of the IS checklist. Constructi on of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potenti al to encounter contaminated soil during constructi on acti viti es and expose constructi on workers to a signifi cant hazard. Therefore, miti gati on measures Haz-1 and Haz-2 are identi fi ed to reduce potenti al hazards to a less than signifi cant level.D-7. This comment includes recommendati ons for sites that were previously used for agricultural acti viti es. The project does not propose any components on lands previously used for agriculture. The Phase III Project components would be located within existi ng roadways, CMWD property, and a golf course. Therefore, this comment does not apply.D-8. This comment lists applicable regulati ons for faciliti es that would generate hazardous wastes. As discussed in Secti on 8 (a) of the IS checklist, the CWRF expansion would be the only Phase III Project component with the potenti al to generate hazardous waste. The CWRF currently uses chemicals and other hazardous materials in its treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additi onal 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 faciliti es would be required to be incorporated into the existi ng CWRF HMBP. Disposal of CWRF equipment, such as fi lters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulati ons. Therefore, the commenter’s recommendati ons have already been incorporated into the IS/MND.D-9 This comment describes services that the DTSC can provide. It does not address the adequacy or accuracy of informati on provided in the IS/MND. No response is necessary. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-14November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-15November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESE-1.LETTER E. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARDE-1. 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) fi nancing and outlines the requirements to obtain funding. It is uncertain at this ti me whether or not the CMWD will pursue CWSRF funding for this project. However, if CMWD does choose to pursue this funding, they will comply will all applicable SWRCB requirements. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-16November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESE-1. cont. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-17November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESE-1. cont.E-2.E-2. This comment states that there are inconsistencies between the breeding seasons or nesti ng 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 Secti on 4 a) of the Initi al Study checklist has been revised to be consistent with the more conservati ve breeding season identi fi ed in miti gati on measures Bio-1A and Bio-1D (January 15 to September 15). The breeding season defi niti on is consistent with the breeding seasons identi fi ed in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, which was approved by CDFG and USFWS. The prime breeding season identi fi ed in miti gati on measure Bio-1A is not inconsistent with the general breeding season, as indicated by the commenter. The prime nesti ng season corresponds to a peak ti me 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 associati on with an acti ve bird nest. Miti gati on measure Bio-1A proposed within Secti on 4 of the Initi al Study checklist includes pre-constructi on requirements for a qualifi ed biologist to confi rm, in writi ng, that no disturbance to acti ve nests or nesti ng acti viti es would occur if project constructi on is planned to occur during any porti on of the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15). Nevertheless, to achieve consistency and improve clarity of the measure, miti gati on measure Bio-1A has been revised as stated below to remove reference to the prime nesti ng season and ensure that all pre-constructi on requirements correspond with the enti re general breeding season ti me period. To further improve clarity of the measure, miti gati on measure Bio-1A has also been revised to replace the term “vacated” with the statement, “no longer acti ve and all nestlings have fl edged the nest”. Miti gati on measure Bio-1A has also been revised to clarify the ti meframe for pre-constructi on surveys. Last, miti gati on measure Bio-1A requires the City to restrict constructi on acti viti es to ensure that no nest is inadvertently abandoned by a bird. The City is not proposing a measure to pursue and require authorizati on or a permit from the CDFG or USFWS to purposely and acti vely cause a nest to be abandoned; therefore, a provision for CDFG and USFWS protocol for vacati ng nests is not necessary. Miti gati on measure Bio-1B has been revised as follows to clarify the ti meframe for pre-constructi on surveys.Bio-1A Avoidance of Nesti ng Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesti ng birds, including raptors, protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code, the CMWD shall enforce the following: Prior to constructi on acti viti es requiring the removal, pruning, or damage of any acti ve nests or trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) any tree pruning or removal operati ons during the prime general nesti ng breeding seasons, that being from March 15 to May 30January 15 to September 15, the City shall retain a qualifi ed biologist to shall survey the trees perform a pre-constructi on survey to determine if there RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-18November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESE-2. cont.E-3.E-4.E-5.E-6.E-7.E-8.are any acti ve nests within 500 feet of the areas of tree removal or pruning planned for constructi on. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of constructi on for a parti cular project component. If any acti ve raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for constructi on, or if any acti ve passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for constructi on, the City shall retain a qualifi ed biologist to fl ag and demarcate the locati ons of the nests and monitor constructi on acti viti es. No tree pruning or removal operati ons can constructi on acti viti es shall occur unti l it is determined by a qualifi ed biologist that the nests are vacated no longer acti ve and all nestlings have fl edged the nest or unti l the end of the prime general breeding season, whichever occurs later. In additi on, prior to any tree removal or pruning operati ons proposed outside of the prime nesti ng season but within the period of January 15 to September 15, a A qualifi ed biologist shall confi rm, in writi ng, that no disturbance to acti ve nests or nesti ng acti viti es would occur as a result of constructi on acti viti es. Documentati on from a qualifi ed biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitt ed to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this eff ect shall be placed on the constructi on plans. Bio-1B Pre-Constructi on Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to constructi on 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 supporti ng naturalized habitat, sensiti ve habitat, and/or habitat potenti ally suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualifi ed biologist to perform a pre-constructi on survey to verify existi ng biological resources adjacent to the project constructi on areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of constructi on for a parti cular project component. E-3. This comment states that pre-constructi on surveys should be done during the enti re breeding season, and miti gati on measures should be identi fi ed for discovery of nests outside of the preconstructi on survey window. The pre-constructi on survey required in miti gati on measure Bio-1B is not limited to the breeding season. Pre-constructi on surveys are required for all project components, regardless of constructi on schedule. Therefore, this recommendati on has already been incorporated in the IS/MND.E-4. This comment requests that the IS/MND identi fy the depth, locati on, and boundary of the Phase III project components. As stated on page IS-17, open trench pipeline constructi on would require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the diameter of the pipe and its depth. The locati ons of the project components are identi fi ed in Figures 2 through 12. The boundaries of each component are described in Table 1, Environmental Setti ng and Surrounding Land Uses. As described in this table, the project components would be located within existi ng roadway and railroad right-of-way, within existi ng CMWD faciliti es, or within an existi ng golf course. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-19November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESE-5. This comment requests clarifi cati on 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.E-6. This comment requests a copy of the cultural resources record search and associated archaeological sensiti vity maps. The commenter is requesti ng this informati on for the purposes of consultati on required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF fi nancing. Should the CMWD pursue CWSRF funding in the future, the CMWD will comply will all applicable State Water Resources Control Board requirements.E-7. This comment requests copies of correspondence with the NAHC in order to confi rm that Nati ve American consultati on has been completed. A descripti on of Nati ve American consultati on is provided in response to comment B-2. As part of preparati on of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave Singleton of the NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additi onally, lett ers to each of the tribal contacts identi fi ed by NAHC were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. The lett ers described the proposed project and contained maps of the proposed CIP locati ons, including the Phase III project components. Copies of the Nati ve 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 demonstrati on of Secti on 106 compliance. Secti on 106 consultati on is required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF fi nancing. Should the CMWD pursue CWSRF funding in the future, the CMWD will comply will all applicable State Water Resources Control Board requirements. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-20November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESF-1.F-2.LETTER F. SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.F-1. This comment states that the conclusion in Secti on 5 (b) of the IS checklist that archaeological resources within previously disturbed areas is unfounded because archaeological resources have been uncovered during similar constructi on acti viti es in the City of San Diego. The IS/MND recognizes that, due to the high cultural resource sensiti vity in the area, unknown cultural resources may sti ll be uncovered during ground disturbing constructi on acti viti es. Appendix A of the IS/MND, Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Constructi on Features, includes a procedure for the accidental discovery of archeological resources that would reduce potenti al impacts to potenti ally signifi cant unknown archaeological resources to a less than signifi cant level. If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during constructi on, or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources is encountered, all ground-disturbing acti vity will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualifi ed archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD to assess the fi nd, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. No further grading will occur in the area of the discovery unti l the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. F-2. This comment states that a qualifi ed archaeologist should review the enti re route of the proposed pipelines and identi fy any areas where unknown subsurface deposits could exist. Secti on 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural resources records search performed by a qualifi ed archeologist at the South Coastal Informati on Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which included the Area of Potenti al Eff ect of the proposed Phase III project components. The purpose of the record search and outreach to Nati ve American contacts, described in response to comment B-2, was to identi fy those projects with the highest potenti al for adversely aff ecti ng cultural resources. The analysis identi fi ed known archaeological resources throughout the CMWD service area; however, the project components included in the Phase III Recycled Water Project would be constructed enti rely within previously disturbed areas. Therefore, this recommendati on has already been incorporated into the IS/MND. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-21November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-22November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES October 16, 2012 Barbara Kennedy, Senior Planner Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Comments on MND Phase III Recycled Water Project Dear Ms. Kennedy: These comments on the draft MND for the Phase III Recycled Water Project are made on behalf of Preserve Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization whose mission is to preserve, protect and enhance the natural resources of coastal north San Diego County. This project is included as part of the broader program level EIR for the complete Recycled Water, Sewer and Water Master Plans. This program level EIR for these three plans is still being processed. This project assumes that the mitigation measures included in the as yet unadopted program level EIR plus the related mitigation measures included with this project level MND will address all of the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with this project. That is a pretty big assumption. It is also not acceptable per CEQA to process this project without having finalized the program level EIR of which it is a part. We see that the full program EIR is moving forward expeditiously and expect the city is assuming that it will be finalized before this current project level MND is certified. That of course would address this procedural issue. However the proper sequencing of these two documents should be identified. The following are our specific comments on this MND : - Since the program level EIR of which this is a part is not yet finalized. This MND should specifically state it will incorporate all mitigation measures that are included in the final certified program level EIR. The current MND has included the mitigation measures(MM) from the DEIR (with minor modifications) but does not acknowledge that these may be modified through the final approval process. - The figures do not show where access will occur in the Shadowridge area of Vista or the Ocean Hills Country Club area of Oceanside. Please clarify how it is intended that 5020 Nighthawk Way – Oceanside, CA 92056 www.preservecalavera.org G-1.G-2.G-3.LETTER G. PRESERVE CALAVERAG-1. This comment expresses concerns regarding incorporati on of the 2012 Master Plans EIR miti gati on measures into the IS/MND because the 2012 Master Plan EIR has not been certi fi ed. This EIR was subsequently certi fi ed on November 6, 2012. Although the EIR was not certi fi ed at the ti me of IS/MND preparati on, CEQA does not require an EIR to be certi fi ed in order to be incorporated as a reference. As stated in Secti on 15150(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Negati ve Declarati on may incorporate by reference all or porti ons of another document which is a matt er of public record or is generally available to the public. The Draft EIR for the 2012 Master Plans EIR was available for public review prior to the public review of the IS/MND and was provided on the City’s website. This document is currently available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Therefore, the 2012 Master Plans EIR is an appropriate document for incorporati on by reference. Additi onally, although the analysis in the IS/MND uti lizes informati on provided in the 2012 Master Plans EIR, the IS/MND is an independent, project-specifi c document and does not rely on the 2012 Master Plans EIR for CEQA “ti ering” as defi ned in CEQA Guidelines Secti on 15152. The biological resources miti gati on measures in the 2012 Master Plans EIR were reviewed for applicability to the Phase III project, tailored as appropriate to be applicable to the proposed project, and determined through the project-specifi c analysis to be suffi cient to reduce Phase III project impacts to a less than signifi cant level. G-2. This comment recommends that the IS/MND specifi cally state that the MND will include all miti gati on measures included in the Final 2012 Master Plans EIR. Refer to response to comment G-1. The IS/MND is an independent, project-specifi c document and does not rely on the 2012 Master Plans EIR for ti ering purposes. Miti gati on measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F were determined to be applicable and suffi cient to reduce project-specifi c biological resource impacts to a less than signifi cant level. Changes to the 2012 Master Plans EIR miti gati on would not aff ect the miti gati on measures provided in the IS/MND. Copies of the IS/MND, including all miti gati on measures, were provided to the wildlife agencies during public review for the proposed project. No comment lett ers from the wildlife agencies were received.G-3. This comment states that is not clear how access will be provided to the Shadowridge area of Vista or the Ocean Hills Country Club area of Oceanside, and what additi onal system modifi cati ons would be necessary to connect these customers to the system. As shown in Figure 6 of the IS, existi ng pipelines extend from the proposed ES 4A project component to the Ocean Hills Golf Course and Shadowridge WRF. No unidenti fi ed system modifi cati ons would be required to connect these customers to the recycled water system. As described in the Project Descripti on/Environmental Setti ng secti on of the IS, no new pipelines would need to be installed as part of the ES 4A project components. Expansion Area 4A would make use of an existi ng 12-inch diameter pipeline in Melrose Avenue that would connect to an existi ng pipeline in Faraday Avenue. No new access would be required. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-23November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESthese 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 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 with 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 permanent 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 modified over time because of construction and other barriers that have changed historic movement patterns since the MHCP corridors were mapped 15 years ago. See Wildlife Corridor study submitted to the city as 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 with you to address these concerns. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard Cc: Bryand Duke CDFG, On Behalf of Preserve Calavera Janet Stuckrath USFWS G-4.G-5.G-6.G-4. This comment states that the MND has not described what acti ons would be taken to comply with wetland permit requirements. As discussed in Secti on 4c) of the Initi al Study checklist, none of the proposed project components would result in direct discharge, dredge, or fi ll acti viti es within jurisdicti onal resources, including wetlands. Due to the locati on of the proposed project components within upland areas, none are expected to result in inadvertent discharge, dredge, or fi ll acti viti es within jurisdicti onal resources. Porti ons of ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, and ES 8 are located within upland areas that occur in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas potenti ally supporti ng wetlands. Potenti ally signifi cant indirect impacts were identi fi ed. Potenti al indirect impacts to federally protected wetlands and other jurisdicti onal resources would be reduced to less than signifi cant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulati ons discussed in Secti on 9 and Appendix A of the IS checklist; incorporati on of project design and constructi on features identi fi ed for Biological Resources and Hydrology and Water Quality in Appendix A of the IS Checklist; and, implementati on of Miti gati on Measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, Bio-1E, and Bio-1F. 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 siti ng and design of the proposed project. Miti gati on measure Bio-1B requires pre-constructi on surveys by a qualifi ed biologist to verify existi ng biological resources adjacent to project constructi on areas, including the presence or absence of potenti al jurisdicti onal resources and wetlands. If potenti al jurisdicti onal resources or other sensiti ve biological resources are determined to exist or have the potenti al to exist adjacent to project constructi on areas, the City will further implement Miti gati on measure Bio-1C, which requires fencing to be installed to clearly delineate the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensiti ve areas that occur beyond the approved limits. In additi on, the City will restrict all constructi on staging areas through the implementati on of miti gati on measure Bio-1E and, through the implementati on of miti gati on measure Bio-1F, will retain a qualifi ed biologist to perform contractor awareness training to inform constructi on crews of the sensiti ve resources and associated avoidance and/or minimizati on requirements. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately demonstrates how impacts to sensiti ve areas would be avoided, as recommended by the commenter.G-5. This comment states that the IS/MND should include miti gati on to require an assessment of open space areas for potenti al impacts to wildlife corridors during constructi on. As discussed in Secti on 4d) of the IS checklist, all of the Phase III project component sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existi ng 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 functi on of any known or potenti al 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 RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-24November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESidenti fi ed as having potenti al indirect impacts on biological resources (i.e., ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9), installati on and operati on acti viti es associated with recycled water pipelines within existi ng disturbed and developed areas would not be expected to adversely aff ect wildlife movement and would not necessitate the additi onal measures suggested by the commenter. Therefore, the recommended modifi cati ons to miti gati on measure Bio-1B 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 III 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 implementati on acti ons are to be implemented by local jurisdicti ons and agencies, such as incorporati ng 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 III project components. Therefore, the WMP is not considered an applicable local regulati ons and is not listed in the list of applicable hydrology and water quality regulati ons in Secti on 9a) of the IS checklist. It would be speculati ve to include watershed management plans that may or may not be adopted in the future; therefore, potenti al 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. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-25November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESH-1.H-2.LETTER H. LEUCADIA WASTEWATER DISTRICTH-1. This comment states that the IS/MND does not address the potenti al abandonment of the Gafner Water Reclamati on Facility (WRF) or the constructi on of new pipeline across the La Costa golf course property. The IS/MND does not propose the physical abandonment of the Gafner WRF. Page IS-3 of the IS has been updated to make this clarifi cati on. The Gafner WRF is a Leucadia Wastewater District facility and the future use or abandonment of the Gafner WRF will be determined by the Leucadia Wastewater District. None of the Phase III project components would necessitate demoliti on or any other physical change to the plant, as discussed in greater detail in the City of Carlsbad Uti liti es Department’s (Uti liti es Department) lett er dated November 6, 2012, which is included as Att achment A to this RTC. The Phase III project does not commit the CMWD to constructi ng a new pipeline. As stated in Project Descripti on/Environmental Setti ng on page IS-8 of the IS, CMWD could purchase or lease an existi ng pipeline directly from Leucadia Wastewater District to serve the South La Costa golf course. This analysis assumes that a new pipeline will be built in order to analyze the worst case scenario.The IS/MND does address the porti on of ES 8 that would cross the La Costa golf course property if a new pipeline would be constructed. As stated in Project Descripti on/Environmental Setti ng on page IS-8 of the IS, ES 8 would be located within existi ng roads and CMWD ROW, with the excepti on of the pipeline to the South La Costa golf course, which may be placed outside of the existi ng public ROW. Although this porti on of ES 8 is not within an existi ng public ROW, it is sti ll located in a previously disturbed area. This comment erroneously states that the analysis concludes that constructi on of the pipeline would not cause any environmental impacts. Due to the proposed pipeline’s proximity to undeveloped areas, including wetlands, Secti on 4 of the IS checklist concluded that implementati on of ES 8 would result in potenti ally signifi cant impacts to biological resources and miti gati on measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F would be required.H-2. This comment introduces the comments that are addressed in responses to comments H-3 through H-14. Refer to the responses to these comments.Porti ons of this comment pertain to the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master Plan. Please also refer Uti liti es Department lett er responses to comments 5 and 6. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-26November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESH-3.H-4.H-5.H-3. This comment states that the descripti on of ES 8 does not accurately describe the purpose of the ES 8 element and incorrectly identi fi es the Gafner Plant as an inacti ve facility. Figure 9 has been revised to identi fy the Gafner WRF as acti ve. Refer to response to comment 7 of the Uti liti es Department response lett er. The project does not propose the abandonment of the Gafner Plant. The new pipeline ES8 has been sized for additi onal recycled water deliveries to numerous locati ons along its alignment, and to OMWD. However, the acti vity or inacti vity of the Gafner Plant, and the CMWD use of the facility, do not aff ect the analysis of the ES 8 project component. No revisions to the IS/MND are required in response to this comment.H-4. The secti on of the lett er states that the conclusions found in the Program EIR and IS/MND are based on incorrect informati on 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 Uti liti es Department response to comments 8 through 13.H-5. This secti on of the lett er 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 att ached Uti liti es Department response to comments on the Master Plan. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-27November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESH-5. cont.H-6.H-7.H-8.H-6. The comment states that the erroneous assumpti ons in the Master Plan were carried forward to the 2012 Master Plans EIR and IS/MND. As noted in the responses provided by the City (found in Att achment A to the RTC), the analysis conducted as part of the 2012 Master Plans EIR is based on accurate assumpti ons and therefore no revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.H-7. This comment introduces the comments that are addressed in responses to comments H-14 through H-17. Refer to the responses to these comments.H-8. This comment states that Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek are missing from the Noti ce of Completi on 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 selecti on 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 potenti ally aff ected by the project are fully analyzed in the IS/MND. However, in response to this comment, Figure 9 has been updated to identi fy Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-28November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESH-8. cont.H-9.H-10.H-11.H-12.H-9. This comment states that Maerkle Dam poses litt le threat to ES 8. This is consistent with the IS/MND conclusion in Secti on 9j) that impacts related to inundati on from Maerkle Dam would be less than signifi cant. This comment also states that the IS fails to disclose how the ES8 pipeline would be constructed within the fl oodplain of San Marcos Creek, or impacts to the San Marcos Creek fl oodplain. The IS/MND states on page IS-17 under Constructi on Schedule and Methods that trenchless constructi on would be uti lized to cross San Marcos Creek. The IS/MND correctly concludes in Secti on 9h) that the underground pipelines would not impede or redirect fl ows within a 100-year fl ood hazard area. Two porti ons of ES 8 pipeline would be installed on the sides of existi ng bridges: an existi ng 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 Constructi on Schedule and Methods discussion on page IS-17 has been revised to clarify the descripti on of the creek crossings. The proposed pipes would be att ached to the side of the bridges and would not result in any new interference with potenti al fl ood waters. Secti on 9h) of the IS/MND has been revised to clarify that the bridge crossing would not impede or redirect fl ood fl ows. The revisions to the analysis made in response to this comment do not identi fy a new signifi cant eff ect or miti gati on and do not consti tute a substanti al revision.H-10. This comment states that the IS/MND does not disclose that a porti on of ES 8 would occur within the La Costa Resort, which is outside of the public right of way. The descripti on of ES 8 on page IS-8 under Recycled Water Distributi on 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 descripti on of the Project Locati on on page IS-1 referenced in this comment has been corrected to state that a porti on 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 aff ect the environmental analysis of ES 8.H-11. This comment states that the MND fails to identi fy potenti al impacts to wetland and riparian habitats because there is no discussion of the specifi c method that would be used to install the San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek crossing of ES 8. The comment also states that no miti gati on has been indenti fi ed for potenti al impacts. As stated in the comment, the IS/MND describes constructi on of the San Marcos Creek crossing on page IS-17. A trenchless constructi on method would be used, and the jack-and-bore method is given as an example. The descripti on on page IS-17 has been updated to provide directi onal drilling as another potenti al method that may be used. Either method would avoid direct impacts to habitat within San Marcos Creek. Installati on of pipeline on the existi ng bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real would also avoid potenti al direct impacts. Encinitas Creek currently fl ows 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 aff ected by constructi on. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-29November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESIn response to this comment, page IS-17 of the IS/MND has been updated as follows to specifi cally describe constructi on in the Encinitas Creek area:Equipment associated with the constructi on of the Phase III project would uti lize typical constructi on equipment including dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installati on project components would uti lize open trenching or trenchless (directi onal drilling or jack-and-bore) methods. Open trench pipeline constructi on 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 fl ows 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 aff ected by constructi on. Two porti ons of ES 8 pipeline would be installed on the sides of existi ng bridges: an existi ng bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. Att aching the pipelines to the bridges would not require ground-disturbing constructi on acti vity. The installati on of pipelines within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require a temporary lane or roadway closure during constructi on acti viti es. No grading would be required for the proposed CWRF expansion because it would occur on the existi ng building pads.As discussed in Secti on 4c) of the IS checklist, the IS/MND concurs with the comment that ES 8 is located within the immediate vicinity of wetland and riparian habitat. Therefore, the IS/MND determined that potenti al indirect impacts to wetland and riparian habitat would occur. As identi fi ed on pages IS-34 and IS-35, miti gati on measures Bio-1B through Bio-1F would be required to reduce impacts to a less than signifi cant level. Therefore, no revisions to the IS/MND are required in response to this comment. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-30November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSESH-12. cont.H-13.H-14.H-15.H-12. This comment states that the IS/MND fails to disclose the potenti al for trenchless constructi on to impact archaeological resources within the San Marcos Creek fl oodplain. Secti on 5b) of the IS checklist has been revised to clarify that constructi on would take place within existi ng roadways or the developed South La Costa Golf Course. Similar to the existi ng roadways, resources within the previously disturbed golf course would have been removed or destroyed by the previous constructi on. This includes impacts from trenchless constructi on in San Marcos Creek because this segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The enti re South La Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf course, including the existi ng creek alignment. The revisions to the analysis made in response to this comment do not identi fy a new signifi cant eff ect or miti gati on and do not consti tute a substanti al revision.H-13. This comment states that the IS/MND does not address the potenti al abandonment of the Gafner Water Reclamati on Plant and does not consider operati on of the plant as an existi ng conditi on. The Phase III project does not propose to abandon the Gafner WRF. None of the Phase III project components would necessitate demoliti on or any other physical change to the plant. It is unclear what environmental eff ects would be caused by implementati on of the project that are not disclosed of in the IS/MND, as stated by the commenter. This IS/MND addresses the potenti al environmental impacts that would occur as a result providing the uti liti es proposed in the Phase III project. Figures 2 and 9 have been corrected; however, the operati on or inacti vity of the Gafner plant does not aff ect the potenti al environmental impacts of the proposed project.H-14. This comment states that the IS/MND fails to discuss the potenti al impacts of demoliti on and replacement of the Gafner WRF. The Phase III project does not propose the demoliti on or replacement of the Gafner WRF. None of the Phase III project components would necessitate demoliti on or any other physical change to the plant. Therefore, no change to the IS/MND is required in response to this comment.H-15. This comment concludes the lett er and summarizes the comments that are specifi cally addressed in responses to comment H-1 through H-14. Refer to the response to these comments. RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-31November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSESCOMMENTSCMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-32November 14, 2012COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES ATTACHMENT A City of Carlsbad Uti liti es Department Lett er dated November 8, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-33 November 14, 2012 www.carlsbadca.gov November 8, 2012 Paul Bushee, General Manager Leucadia Wastewater District 1960 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Phase III Recycled Water Project, (EIA 12-02) Dear Mr. Bushee: The Utilities Department is responding to your comment letter dated October 19, 2012 regarding the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase III 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: x La Costa South Golf Course x 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. x Numerous irrigation meters located along El Camino Real, including street median and parkway areas. x Various homeowner associations which have maintenance responsibilities for community based 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. x 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 source located in El Camino Real. x Landscape irrigation to the commercial center at the intersection of La Costa Boulevard and El Camino Real. 1. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-34 November 14, 2012 Nov. 8, 2012 Page 2 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 III 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 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 significantly 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 2. 3. 4. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-35 November 14, 2012 Nov. 8, 2012 Page 3 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 III recycled water project. Abandoning the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase III 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 III 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 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. 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 5. cont. 6. 7. 8. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-36 November 14, 2012 Nov. 8, 2012 Page 4 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.” 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. 8. cont. 9. 10. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-37 November 14, 2012 Nov. 8, 2012 Page 5 Comment 11, Page 2: “The Master Plan assumed that maximizing 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 available 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 III Recycled Water Project demand is greater than existing available supplies, 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 delivery 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. 11. 12. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)Page RTC-38 November 14, 2012 Nov. 8, 2012 Page 6 Comment 13, Page 2, “Any conclusions in the MND that rely upon the price of recycled water as a basis for pursuing abandonment of the Gafner Plant are not supportable because the option of modifying the price has never been pursued by CMWD.” Response: The MND is an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the Phase III Recycled Water Project as recommended in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. CMWD has met several times with LWD to discuss the option of modifying the price and terms of recycled water sales to CMWD. These proposals were considered, but remained as a high cost alternative relative to other sources of supply. The City is willing to discuss further the cost of the recycled water from the Gafner Plant. We have not abandoned the Gafner Plant. We note that other improvements are required to efficiently utilize the Gafner Plant as part of an expanded recycled water distribution system for CMWD. Various additional improvements are required to efficiently utilize the Gafner Plant which do not accommodate the current method of supplying recycled water by LWD. This has been discussed with LWD staff at meetings with City staff. It is important for CMWD to expand its recycled water distribution through cost effective improvements. Sincerely, David P. Ahles, P.E. Senior Engineer 13. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-1 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Environmental Impact Assessment Form – Initial Study Case Number: EIA 12-02 Project Title: Phase III Recycled Water Project Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Contact Person: Barbara Kennedy (760) 602-4626 Project Location: The Phase III Recycled Water Project (Phase III 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 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 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 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 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase III 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM – INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-2 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III project would be constructed within the CWRF, within existing and planned roadway ROW, the South La Costa Golf 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 afy acre feet per year BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway CARB California Air Resources Board CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDP Coastal Development Permit CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CH4 Methane CIPs Capital Improvement Projects CMP Congestion Management Program CMWD Carlsbad Municipal Water District CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CWRF Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility DEH County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health DOC Department of Conservation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIR Environmental Impact Report ES Expansion Segment EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility FHWA Federal Highway Administration HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan HMP Habitat Management Plan HPMR Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MG million gallon MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program N2O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOx Nitrogen oxides OMWD Olivenhain Municipal Water District PFCs Perfluorocarbons PM10 Respirable particulate matter PM2.5 Fine particulate matter RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy ROW right(s)-of-way RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SIP State Implementation Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VID Vista Irrigation District VOC Volatile organic compounds VWD Vallecitos Water District PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-3 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III, 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 III (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 III facility improvements to meet the additional demand. Phase III 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 III project would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Phase III project consists of the following facility improvements. Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion The CWRF is owned by CMWD; however, 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III expansion segments. Pacific Ocean M EX I C O U .S .A . RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY San Vicente Reservoir Otay Reservoir Sweetwater Reservoir Lake Hodges Lake Jennings Lake Murray Lake Henshaw El Capitan Reservoir Loveland Reservoir Lake Wohlford !"^$ !"^$ %&s( !"_$ AÛ %&s( Aù ?z !"_$ ?À !"^$ !"a$ ?j ?h ?¨ ?ª ?© ?k[ S.D. COUNTY SAN DIEGO POWAY S.D. COUNTY CHULA VISTA OCEANSIDE CARLSBAD VISTA SANTEE ESCONDIDO SAN MARCOS ENCINITAS EL CAJON CORONADO LA MESA NATIONAL CITY LEMON GROVE IMPERIAL BEACH SOLANA BEACH DEL MAR S.D. COUNTY S.D. COUNTY S.D. COUNTY S.D. COUNTY 56 Source: ESRI, 2010; SanGIS, 2011 CMWD Service Boundary City of Carlsbad REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1±0 84 Miles CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND [Ú#* #* [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú ÍB ÍB ÍB $+ $+ [Ú UT UT ?> #*UT #* "C" Tank Carlsbad WRF Gafner WRP Mahr Reservoir Meadowlark WRF §¨¦5 Agua Hedionda Lagoon Twin "D" TanksCamino Real E lm A ve Marron Rd Car l sbad B lv dHi ghl and Dr A lo nd r a Way Paseo NorteF a i l sa fe Pi pe l in e Palomar Airport RD Aviara Pkwy El Fuerte StCosta Ave Po ins e tti a L n T a m a r a ck A v e Cannon Rd Rancho Santa FeCalavera PS Bressi PS "D" Tank PS Pacific Ocean Batiquitos Lagoon Buena Vista Lagoon Oceanside Shadowridge WRP Lake Calavera Corintia Meter OMWD Meter 8" 4A C038 C202 C014 C201 C052 C079C057 C023 C059 C033 ÃÆ78 AINROFILAC ÃÆ78 AINROFILAC Vista Encinitas Oceanside 2 5 1A 7 89 18 12''30''14''10'' 6''8''24'' 18'' 4'' 1 6 ''20''27''2''8''4''8''8''14'' 8'' 4''4''4''8''4''18''8''12'' 8''4''6''24''12''8''4''8''8''8''12''30 ''6'' 8''1 2 ''24'' 8 ''24'' 8''6''6''6''8''4''8''8''6''20''4''4''2 4''4''12''4'' 12''4'' 12'' 6'' 8''12'' 18'' 12''6''8'' 4''6' '8'' 8'' 6'' 12''12''8''8'' 1 6'' 8'' 8'' 8 ''4'' 8'' 1 2' ' 8 ''12''8''4'' C200 C017 C032 C177 C172 C178 C165 C164 C163 C064 C158 C126 C119 C116 C156 C155 C152 C151 C149 C148 C147 C146 C145C144 C143 C107 C109 C140 C137 C104 C093 C100C091 C076 C005 C009 C001 C039 C050 C053 C061 C075 C074 C086C054 C073 C085 C083 C010 C037 C078 C040 C003 C013 C027 C002 C004 C021 C072 C029 18"12"8 "6"4" 6" 8" 6" 6" 8" 8" 6" 8 "6"8" 6 "8"12"4"6"6"6"6"12" 8" 4"12"12"12"8"4"6"12"8"8"6"6"8"8"8" 8 "6"1 6 '' 1 8'' 27''4''12''6'' 2 4''8''14'' 30''12''8 ''8''8'' 8''8''8''12''8'' 12'' 8 ''8'' 12'' 8''8''12''4''8''30''12''8''3 0' '12''8''30''8''24'' 8'' 8''4'' 12'' 12'' 8'' 8'' 6''12''12'' 8'' 8'' 8' ' 8 ''12''8''8''12'' 8''8'' 4 ''6'' 8'' 12 ''6''18'' 6'' 12'' 8''8''8''8''24'' 12''8''18''8 ''8''4''8''6''8''6''4'' 24 ''8''8'' 1 6 ''12''8'' 16'' 18'' 8'' 8''8''30''24''12'' 8'' 4'' 12'' 1 6''8''8''12''12''8''18'' 18'' 6''8''24'' 8'' 12''8''6'' 8''8''12 ''6'' 8'' 4'' 8''8''4''4'' 12'' 8 ''6 ''8''8''Miracosta College C103 PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT FACILITY LOCATIONS FIGURE 2 Source: Carollo 2012 5,000 ±00 2,500 Feet O 0 5,000 10,000 Feet Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Developer Expansion Segment - 1A Expansion Segment - 2 Expansion Segment - 5 Expansion Segment - 4A Expansion Segment - 7 Expansion Segment - 8 Expansion Segment - 9 Expansion Segment - 18 Freeways Major Roads Local Streets Developer Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Expansion Projects Adjacent to Existing Customers Recycled Water Pipelines Recycled Water Facilities [Ú Pump Station ÍB Pressure Regulating Station $+Meter #*WRF UT Tank?>Reservoir #*Leucadia WRF [Ú LWWD Pump Station Water Body Carlsbad City Limits San Diego County CMWD Boundary CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND Other Future Tank Site PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-6 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 This page intentionally left blank. Interstate 5Interstate 5Avenida EncinasAvenida EncinasPhase III Granular Media Filtration UnitPhase III Chlorine Contact BasinPhase III GMF Feed PumpSource: Carollo 2012200CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY EXPANSIONFIGURE 3±00 100FeetCMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-8 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 The future recycled water customers that would be added to the recycled water system as part of Phase III 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 III 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 III 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. JASPER WYRUTHERFORD RD POIN SET T I A L NFA R A D AY AV 1A 10 ''18''20''1 6 '' 12''6''4''4''10''4'' 8''4'' 12''20''4''12''8''8''12''4''4'' C032 C116 C093 C099 C100 C091 C094 C096 C039 C058 C069 C061 C055 C081 C082 C066 C084 C049 C086 C054 C089 C092 C073 C085 8"6"4"4"4"4"4"4"8" 4" 6 " 6"4"6"6"4"EL C A M R EA L CASS IA PA L O M AR AIR POR T CAM VIDA ROBLEYARROW ORION RU T HER F O RD TOBRIA FARADA Y PRIVATE AMT ILIAOINSET T IA LAS PALMAS OLEANICOLIA KALMIALI LIUMCOSMOS KINGLETCOBALTCTE DE LA PINA BLUEBIRD BLUEGRASSALEXA NDRIVERD I NKIWIPRIVATEPRIVATE Source: Carollo 2012 1,200 EXPANSION SEGMENT 1A FIGURE 4±00 600 Feet CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Avg water usage = 99 afy No of meters = 56 No of customers = 17 Expansion Segment 1A Expansion Project 1A Adjacent to Existing Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Expansion Segment - 1A Carlsbad City Limits #* [Ú Carlsbad WRF §¨¦5 Agua Hedionda Lagoon BRYCE CRMARINA DRBAYSHORE DRAT & SF RR2 8''2 4 '' 20'' 8''C144 C137 C059 C050 C053 C075 C065 C052 C074 C057 C080 C079 C083 C023 C002 18" 8 "12"1 6 " 8" 18"18"18"8"12"1 8 "18"18"18"8" 8"18"18"8 " I-5 SBI-5 NBI-5CANNO N AVNDA ENCI NASCARLSBADPASEO DEL NORTEPARK ARMADAEL ARBOL PALOMAR AIRPORT E ASYLOS ROBL ESCAR COUNTRYFLEETOCEANVIEWSHORECEREZO MANZ A N O PRIVATE F RIE NDLYAUTO C ENTER TI ERRA DEL OROCARLS BADI-5 I-5 I-5 I-5Source: Carollo 2012 1,600 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Avg water usage = 782 afy No of meters = 18 No of customers = 13 Expansion Segment 2 EXPANSION SEGMENT 2 FIGURE 5±00 800 Feet CMWD Boundary Carlsbad City Limits Water Body #*WRF [Ú Pump Station Developer Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Adjacent to Existing Expansion Project 2 Expansion Segment - 2 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND O 0 900 1,800450 Feet #*Shadowridge WRFShadowridge WRF 4A Vista 14' ' 6''8''30''12''4''4''8''30''8''12'' 6'' 8''8'' 8'' 8'' 8'' 6'' 8''12''12 ''MELROSESYCAMOR E EL FUERTEB USIN E S S PARKSHADOWR IDGE PALOMAR AIRPORT LIONSHEAD PARK CENTERFARADAY SCOTTLUPIN E H ILL S LONGHORNWHITE SANDSDA WSON RANCHO B R A V ADO E AGLEGATE W AY O AK R IDGE ANTIGUA G R E E N OAK ENGINEEROPAL RIDGEWHITE BIRCH WHIPTAIL LOO PCORONAD O LA MIRADA BROOKHAVEN PASSASPEN P OINSETTIA P ARKVIEWROSE W OO D KEYSTONE EAST BROOKMAGELLAN LIBERTYLINKS PAS EO M O NONAJOSHUAHARMONY DECISIONITHACA B R ESS I RA NC H DISTRIBUTION JAMAICA RIDGELINEMARBELLA CHERRYWOOD ELM RIDGE C O TTAGECOURAG E D U ND E EHA R BORBRA VA D O WILLOW RIDG EGOYA PIPELINECALYPSO RANCHO FAMOSAKEY LARGOGAZE L LE SAN MARCOS G R EEN R ID GE SEA IS LANDMOUNTAIN PASS IS L A N D SHORE MONTECITOBA R LE Y COUNT R YS IDE OAKCREEK BAX T E R C ANYON TRIUMPH SAND CR ES TRANCHO DEL CANON INTREPID CI TRACADO HOTSPRING ECHO TOWN GARDEN RANCHO DIAMO N T E AVNDA CHELSEA DOS AARONSCLARKSAND DOLLARCOU ST EA U RANCHO COMPANEROCOVEPASEO DEL LAGO BROGUERANCHO LA PRESA S E A C R E ST RAN C H O AR R O B APASEO TIENDAPASEO GRANITORANCHO CARRIZO L A MIRADA P R I VATE OAKCREEKP RIVATEPR IVA T EPRIVATEPRIVATEPRIVA TE GREEN OAK WHITE BIRCHC157 C155 C154 C151 C150 C003 C090 $+ C103 Source: Carollo 2012 1,800 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) # $+ Interconnection Flow Control and Meter Station Avg water usage = 300 afy No of meter stations = 1 No of customers = 1 Expansion Segment 4A No of interconnections = 2 Other Expansion Projects Acre Feet Per Yearafy CMWD Boundary Vista Carlsbad City Limits Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Adjacent to Existing Expansion Project 4a *Inactive WRF Existing Sewer Outfall Ocean Hills Golf Course (180 afy) Ocean Hills Golf Course (180 afy) EXPANSION SEGMENT 4A FIGURE 6±00 900 Feet CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND ÃÆ78AINROFILAC Calavera PSCalavera PS KI N G S T ON ST HAYMAR DR 5 7 I-5VISTA SR-78 EBSR-78 WB TAMARACK MARRON IVY PARKHIG HLAN DPI O P ICO EL C AMIN O REALMONROEADAMSCHESTNUTCARLSBAD V IL LAGEOA K PONTIACT RIE S TEDONNAHILLSIDE HOSP CANNONSKY L INE H A RDIN GVALLEY HAYMAR BASSW OOD MAGNOLIA SUNNYHILLC ELIN D A CAYPI NE KELLYISLENEBLINAGLAS GOW FROST PRIVATEJEFFERSON SR-78 COLL E G EHAR WIC HSIER RA MORENASNEAD JA N IS NORTH CRES T GAIL MA D ISON AVILABUENA VISTA GLENOLYM P IA GARFI ELD WILSON JA MES C OV E YORK PA LI SAD E SL A P O R T AL A D A SYMEFOREST C HAT HA M CATALI NAMIR A PACIFIC HOOVEREDIN B URGHALD ER SR-78 ON HI GH RIDGE EAST POIN T ESEACRESTPLAZA CAMINO REAL REGENT SR-78 OFF PLAZA BRADY EUREKAYOURELL APPIANTOPEKAANNHIBIS CUSLAS FLORES VICTORIAEL CAM REALAVENI DA DE ANI TACIARDI LEE SALISBURY LA REDORIDGEC RESTC A RL S B AD TIBURONSUTTER HORIZONBUENA HILLSAVALON FALCO N ATHE NSCAPRI ELMWOODC O RD OBAW ESTW OODGATESHEAD SEVI LL A REFU G IO HO G ANDATE ANCHOR KNOWLES PALM LAGOON VIEW TELESCOPEPENINSUL AGAYLE LI NMAR INVERNES SVANCOUVER AMESLONGVIEWSPOKANE LITT LE R A LONDRASANTA CLARAGOLFERS ITA LI A ALANDERFOURPEAKS ROCK RIDG E R O O SE VE LT S T ANFORDLANCASTER LAGUNA AVOCADOMADISON S T ALL EY CARMELCINDYCORVALLISCYNTHIAWOODLA N D VI LLAGEISABELLAH A VERHILLARLAND VALEWOOD MARIAOLIVE CHESHIREVALLEY G LE NARGOSYSPRUCEAG UILA COASTLINEHARRISO N LINDABLENKARNE WOODSTOC K ANDREA LYNCHWESTHAVENHARBORBRUCE KA R ST JETTY AUSTIN YOSEMIT EPAN N ONI AHASTINGS CONCORDCOVENTRY GRANADA JEANNE LISASOUTHAMPTON ESSEX WILSHIRE REDWOO D VISTA WY VILLAGE V IA M ARTAAVENIDA DE LOUIS AVALENCIA HEMLOCK NOB HILL AI DAN MILANODONMATA L AKEWOODSARA BERKELEY ADAIR SIMSBURY WALNUT CAM EOLILECREST VIEWMCKIN LE Y SEABURY BRIG H T ON CANARIO DONRICARDO WINTERGREEN CAM TOWN L OM A LA G UNANORTH FORK JUNIP ER P OLL Y LAWRENCEMAYVIA ESMARCAGRA N D WATE R BU R Y GROVE REDBLUFFRANCHO DEL ORODAVID CHIN Q UAPI N S U NB U RS T BLUFF HOPE AV A LL EY CLEARVIEWVI A AST UTO BUCK RIDGE NAUTIC AL STRATFORD SONO R A SCOTTI-5 TAMARACK NB OFF RAMPHA RV ARD SEQ U O IA I- 5 CVD NB ON RAM PKIRK KALPATI Y V ETT E SEAVIEW VI A DE PAZNEW LAND SCHOONER BUT TER S L ONGI- 5 T A MA R A CK N B ON RAMPMIDDLE T ONCHELSEA MEDFORD CALAVO M A EZ E L AZURE LAMB ETH GRANITE MCCAULEY L O R N A AUBURN SUMMERWINDGUEVARADOWNS PEARLVIA HINTONHILLVI E W CHANCERY VIA DE CANTO CAMCREST JE F FER S O N STA LL E YFLYING CLOUD MAC ARTHURMONROE S T A L LEY BUCKINGHAM PICADILLY MILLAY KIMBERLY GA RIB A L DI BASIN CRESC E NT PO IN TAURABO NITA H OLLY B R A ECALLE ARROYOS ANFOR D PORTA VIA SANTOS B LUFF VI EWYUKI CAMELLIA RISI NG G LE NTHA MES CAROL LAKE LE XINGTO NCANY ON VIA E COWINTHROPVIA ROSARITOGLO RIA FLOWER FIELD S BARRANCA GRECOU R TOLSON MARGARETTY L EREDGEWARE FOR E ST VIE W CAP E AIRE AMBERW O O D CLIFFFERNGLENVIA S O RBETE CITRUS BALDWI NCIPRIANOGREGORYBIRCH W O ODBELLE ST GEORGE ROYAL DOREET AMATISTAVIA LIB ERTAD AFTON PARKSI DEWOODVALE VIA PAJARO VIA AREQUIPAWINDJ AMM ER FIRENZE VIA CAJITACHARLEENTRUESDELL TARA AVONDALERA TCLIFF NANTUCKETMAYFA I RSHAWN JULIEPOIN T REYESLY O N S COUR A GEOUSMARJORIEVI A PE SC AD O BROOKWOOD SANDALWOOD SP YGLAS S WEST P OINT VIA RICARDO KARREN NEW CASTLE EVER GR EEN SANDYSUNS ET HILLCAMDENST JAME S LAGUNA PRIVATE PRI VATEJE FF E R SO NJAMES COLLEGEPRIVATEPARKPRI VATE CHE STNUT SR-78 I-5PINE JAMESP RIVATE PALM PRIV AT E JA MESHAYMAR CHINQUAPI N RANCHO D ELOR OSR-78 PRIVATE REFUGI OPRIVATESR-78 MAGNOLIA J EFFE R SO NPRI VATEPALM PRIV AT EPRIVATEPRIVATE OAK SR-78 SR-78 PRIVATE SR-78 P RI VATE FOREST PRIVATE A LDE R C200 C178 C165 C164 C163 C158 C126 C140 C104 C005 C010 C037 C078 C040 C027 C021 C029 8 " 12"6"4" 4" 8"6"8"8"8"6"12" 4" 6" 6"8"8"6"6"6"8"8"8"4"8" 4"4"6"8"4"6" 8"8"6"8" 6 " 6 "8"8"8"8"8" 12"8"6"6"8"6"8" 4" 4" 8" 4" 8 " 8 " 8 " 8 " 6 " 8" 6''16''4''24''12'' 8'' 8'' 12''8''6''4'' 1 2 ' '6''16'' 24'' 12''12''12''12''4'' Miracosta College (16 afy) Miracosta College (16 afy) Source: Carollo 2012 3,000 EXPANSION SEGMENT 5 FIGURE 7±00 1,500 Feet Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Avg water usage = 454 afy No of meters = 21 No of customers = 14 Expansion Segment 5 O 1,500 3,000750 Feet CMWD Boundary Oceanside Carlsbad City Limits Water Body Other Phase III Pipelines Developer Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Other Phase III Expansion Projects Expansion Project 5 Expansion Segment - 5 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND Acre Feet Per Yearafy O Feet 0 570 1,140285 7 MARRON TAMARACKH A YMARSR-7 8 E B CAYGLASGOWHAR WI C HCOL LE GECARLSBAD V I LLAGEC H A T H A M PRIVATEE DI NBURGHROCK RI D G E STANFORDLANCA S TERKINGSTON PENIN SUL AVICTORIA TIBURON CH E S HIRE WOODST O C KINVERNE S S M I LFORDJ ETTY AVALON HASTINGS W IL S H IR E BERKELEY S I MSBURY SEABURY RED BLUFF BLUFF SOUTHAMPT O NMI DDLE TONGRANITE BUCKINGHA MB ASINSANFORDTHAMESLEXINGTONWINTHROP BARRANCA EDGE W A R E C L IFF NANTUCKETNE W CASTLE C178 C163 C126 C037 8"6" 4" 4" 8"6"6"8 "8"6"6"4" 6 "6"6"6 "8"6" 8"6"8"6''4''1 2 ' ' 8 '' 12'' 12'' 1 2 ' ' 12''4''8''6''4''12''1 2 ''4''8' '6''ÃÆ78 AINROFILAC Source: Carollo 2012 1,140 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Expansion Project 7 Other Phase III Expansion Projects Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Developer Expansion Segment - 7 Other Phase III Pipelines Carlsbad City Limits Oceanside CMWD Boundary Avg water usage = 98 afy No of meters = 11 No of customers = 3 Expansion Segment 7 Acre Feet Per Yearafy EXPANSION SEGMENT 7 FIGURE 8±00 570 Feet CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND [Ú #*Gafner WRF 8 ALGA EL CAMINO REALLA COSTA ALMADEN M I M O SAAVIARA ALICANTEMANZANITALEVANTECO LUMBINE AR E NALS A L IE N T ECAT ALPA GOLDSTON E CEREUS PLAYAPRIVA TEFE R NCALETAT O R E SCO MALLOW RE P OSADOTO R R E JON RUSTICOBRASSGERANIUM LILAC SU B IDA T E R RAC E SACADAPAMPLONA CARAC OL BLUE ORCH ID COTTONWOOD GRE E N V I EW PENTAS C001 12"12"12"C004 $+ 16 " 12" 6" San Marcos Creek Enc i nit as Cr e ekSource: Carollo 2012 1,100 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Avg water usage = 420 afy No of services = 2 No of interconnections = 1 Expansion Segment 8 EXPANSION SEGMENT 8 FIGURE 9±00 550 Feet Expansion Project 8 Existing Recycled Water Pipelines #*Leucadia WRF [Ú LWWD Pump Station Water Body Carlsbad City Limits Encinitas CMWD Boundary Expansion Segment - 8 Phase III LWWD to CMWD Demand CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND Interconnection $+Metering Station No of meter stations = 1 No of customers = 2 ÍB 255 Zone PRS 9C202 C201 C177 C172 C014 C038 C033 C072 8"6"8" 8" 8 "8"6 "I-5 NBI-5CARLSBADP O IN S E T T IA PRIV ATEAVNDA ENCI NASBATIQUITOSIVYPONTOLIN DENLANTANASAN LUIS DAISYHARBORPASEO DEL NORTECAM DE LAS ONDAS SAN BART OLOGABBI ANOALLY S U M SHO RELINECARNATIONSEA S C A P ESANTA BARBARA MAGELLANPOPPY WIN DROSEWATERS ENDNEPTUNEC A PSTANLEEWARDCATAMARANAZAL EATRADEWI NDSBLUE PTN A VI GA T ORP EA C H T R E E ORCH IDHIDDEN VALLEYPEAR TREEROSEMARY R USSELIASAN BENITO ABELIA SKYSAIL WHI TEWATERBUOY TEA TREESEAF ARE RBRIARWOODBL UEWATER BEACON BAY QUIET COV EMONTIA REEVEWATERCOURSESTERNWHITECAPALLEY LOWDERSEAWARD L O G A N B E R R Y ELDER SAN LUCASB UTTERCUP RUDDER MAPLE LEAFHALSING BEGONIA LIGHTHOUSE B IN NACLEEMBARCADE RO SANDSIDE SANDCASTLESAN C A R LOS MELALEU C AMERMAI DMA R L IN HEATHERSWEETWATERCAM D EL PRA DOM A RGUERITE D AHLIAHAWTHORNE SEAHORSE CHANNEL WHITESAILW INDVANE GRIVETTA SAND SHELL S A N TA CRUZ SALTGRASS HY A CINTHSTRAND CORAL REEF SEASHELLAS PE N SUNDIALLANDS END SR-101 OKRA NUTMEGSANDBAR CIGNO ZIN NIA BROOKSIDE M UL B E R R Y CAMTO AZUL D APH N E ALLE Y ALL EYPRIVATE PRIVATE PRIVATEPONTO CARLSBADPRIVATE ALLE Y PRIVATE PRIVATE I -5 6' '4'' 24'' 12''10''8'' 20''6''8'' 12''6'' 4''8''8'' 4''8''6'' 6' '12''6''24'' 24''24'' 8 ''2 4 ''12''1 2 ''24''8'' 2 4''6''6'' 8''4''12''12''8''6''12' ' 24'' 8 ''8''4'' 8''8'' 8''4''12'' Source: Carollo 2012 1,200 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Avg water usage = 91 afy No of meters = 6 No of customers = 7 Expansion Segment 9 EXPANSION SEGMENT 9 FIGURE 10±00 600 Feet Expansion Project 9 Adjacent to Existing Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Developer ÍB Pressure Regulating Station Water Body Carlsbad City Limits Encinitas CMWD Boundary Expansion Segment - 9 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND [Ú Bressi PS 18 C032 C153 C061 C055C084 C086 C085 C044 4"6 "8"6"6"8"E L CA M R E A L P A LOM A R AIRP O RT O RION S U NNY C R EEK GATEWAY F ARADA Y PAL MER IMPALA TOWN GARDEN ALICANTETOPIARYALVERTONLOKER WESTPUBLIC YA R ROWALLEYINNOVATIONDOGWOOD E L F UE R T E ARUNDEL INGLETON RUTH E R F ORDGARDEN HOUSE C O U G AR LISMOREDISCOVERY DARTINGTONPASCALPRIV ATE F A R A D A Y PRIVATE8''1 6'' 3 0 ''4''20''18'' 12'' 27''8''12 '' 12''12''12''8''8''12 '' 12''20''8''8''4''1 2''8''8''8'' 12'' 1 6 ' ' 8 ''8''8'' 30'' 8'' 1 6 ' ' 1 2 ''8'' 12''8'' Source: Carollo 2012 1,500 Avg water usage = 25 afy No of meters = 12 No of customers = 1 Expansion Segment 18 EXPANSION SEGMENT 18 FIGURE 11±00 750 Feet Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Expansion Project 18 Other Phase III Expansion Projects Adjacent to Existing Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Other Phase III Pipelines [Ú Pump Station Carlsbad City Limits Expansion Segment - 18 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-17 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 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 III 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 III 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. 378372 356370 354358360362 366364368 352 350348 346344342 340338336 384382334334376 380384376376378376378378376376 384 382BLACK RAIL ROAD1.5 MGPROPOSEDTANKSource: Carollo 201275PROPOSED STORAGE TANK LOCATIONFIGURE 12±00FeetCMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-19 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Table 1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses Project Component Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion The expansion would be located within the existing CWRF facility. The proposed chlorine contact basin and granular media filtration equipment would be located within a new concrete structure. The two concrete tanks that contain the treatment system would be surrounded by other CWRF facilities to the south, east, and 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 Segment 1 Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Corte del Nogal, Corte de Abeto, Yarrow Drive, Corta 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. Expansion Segment 2 Pipelines would be located within the BNSF railroad ROW and the following existing roadways: Cannon Road, Avenida Encinas, Palomar Airport Road, and Oceanview Drive. Land uses along the rail corridor include the 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 Segment 4A The existing pipeline is located within South Melrose Drive in the city of Vista. Land uses along this roadway include open space, industrial parks, commercial land use, single-family residences, and the Shadowridge Country Club and golf course. Expansion Segment 5 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 residences, medical offices, and open space. Land uses along Marron Road include commercial land use, multi- 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 Segment 7 Pipeline would be installed within the following existing roadways within a single-family residential neighborhood: Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 Portions of ES 8 would be installed within the following existing roadways: La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Land uses along these roadways include open space, commercial development, single-family and multi- 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. Expansion Segment 9 Pipeline would be installed in several existing roadways: Avenida Encinas, Ponto Drive, and Navigator Circle. Land uses along Avenida Encinas include the Lake Shore Garden mobile home residential neighborhood and 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 Segment 18 Pipeline would be installed in the existing Palmer Way and Impala Drive roadway ROW. These roadways are located in an existing business park including office and light industrial uses. 1.5 MG Steel Tank The new or relocated steel tank would be located on a currently graded site that contains two existing steel tanks for recycled water storage. The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline at the site. Existing 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. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-20 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Environmental Initial Study Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Planner Signature Date City Planner Signature Date ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-21 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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-Initial 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-Initial 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-22 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. Aesthetics Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 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 temporary 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-23 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 1a), 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 1a), 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant 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? ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-24 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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: 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) Result 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-25 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Explanation: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant. The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of air quality regulations for the SDAB. The most current air quality planning document for the SDAPCD and thus the applicable air quality plan to the Phase III project is the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) (SDAPCD 2009). This plan was prepared by the SDAPCD for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), to demonstrate how the SDAB would either maintain or strive to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The California SIP would also be applicable to the proposed project. California SIP documents are prepared by CARB to demonstrate how the entire state of California will maintain or attain the NAAQS. The 2009 RAQS and SIP were developed based on growth assumptions, land use, and other information from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which obtains information from the local jurisdictions general plans and growth assumptions. Growth assumptions made within the 2012 RWMP to establish appropriate future service requirements were derived from the City’s Growth Database, SANDAG data, and studies from neighboring water districts. The CIP projects included in the 2012 RWMP were proposed to meet the projected buildout demand and would be implemented concurrently with development, or as repairs are needed. The size and capacities of the recycled water CIP projects are based on the projected growth that would occur in the areas served by the CMWD. The Phase III project would implement CIP projects identified in the 2012 RWMP to meet future demand. These projects would not generate any additional population and no unplanned growth would be served by the projects. The proposed facilities are community service facilities, providing the infrastructure necessary to support planned population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in population growth that would exceed the population projections accounted for in the RAQS and SIP. Implementation of the Phase III project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and the impact would be less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant. The SDAPCD does not provide quantitative thresholds for determining the significance of construction or mobile source-related projects; however, the SDAPCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis screening level thresholds for new or modified stationary sources (SDAPCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3). These screening ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-26 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III project, would result in less than significant emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction of the proposed CIP projects. The Phase III 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 III 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 Emission Source Maximum Daily Emissions, pounds per day VOC NOx CO SOx PM10(3) PM2.5(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. (3) Estimates of particulate emissions take into account application of soil stabilizers to inactive areas during grading in mandatory compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55. VOC = Volatile organic compounds; NOx = Nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = Sulfur Oxides; PM10 = Respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-27 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 PM2.5, 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 III 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 III 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 III facilities are similar to existing pipelines, storage tanks, and CWRF facilities and would not result in a new source of TACs. As discussed under question 3b), the proposed Phase III 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 III 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 III 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-28 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No 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 limited 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? ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-29 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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) mapping data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper, photographs, and aerial imagery. The Phase III 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 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 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 III 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-30 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Most of the areas surrounding the Phase III 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 III 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 Phase III Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species Project Component Rationale for Determination Expansion Segment 1 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 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 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 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. ,and n 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 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. 0 2 4 6 seliM1 ES-5 at Haymar Drive ES-5 at Tamarack Ave & Carlsbad Village Drive ES-5 at Tamarack Ave & Pontiac Drive ES-5 at Park Dr & Laguna Riviera Park ES-2 at Avenida Encinas & CWRF ES-9 at Ponto Dr ES-8 at La Costa Resort and Spa ES-1 at Palomar ES-1 at West Oaks Way ES-5 at ES-2 at Encina Power Station Palmer Way Oaks Way Source: ESRI, 2010; SanGIS, 2011 PHASE III INDIRECT BIOLOGY IMPACTS FIGURE 13±0 21 Miles CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-32 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 5, 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 (February 1January 15 through September 15August 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-1A 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-1B through Bio-1F 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 III 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 equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would be considered significant. As 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-1B through Bio-1F would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards discussed in Section 9 and implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B through Bio-1F. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-33 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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-1B through Bio-1F 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-1B through Bio-1F. 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 III 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 10(a)(1)(B) permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be permitted to occur until all processing and permitting requirements of the HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled. As ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-34 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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-1A 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 pruning or removal operations during the prime nestinggeneral 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 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 removal or pruning. 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 no tree pruning or removal operations can 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 prime general breeding season, whichever occurs later. In addition, prior to any tree removal or pruning operations proposed outside of the prime nesting season but within the period of January 15 to September 15, aA qualified biologist shall confirm, in writing, that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans. Bio-1B Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-35 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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-1C through Bio-1F. Bio-1C Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio- 1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior to and concurrent with construction. Bio-1D Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 through September 15). If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence. Bio-1E Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of equipment outside of the project boundaries. Bio-1F Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-36 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. 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: 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 III 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 III 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 equally 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 within the proximity 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 III 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 III 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 (as shown in Figure 8) would involve installation of new pipelines ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-37 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 Costa 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 through Implementation of Project Design Features. Archaeological resources within the roadway ROWpreviously disturbed areas would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction. Therefore, the proposed Phase III 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 III project components located within the Santiago formation have the potential to disturb or destroy paleontological resources. The Phase III 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 III project would not result in additional impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources from the Phase III 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 III 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 III 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 III project to a level below significance and no further mitigation would be required. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-38 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 6. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? 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? 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? Explanation: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than significant. The areas within the vicinity of the project components are not underlain by any known active, potentially active, or inactive faults, and are not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineated by the California Geological Survey (2010). Active faults in the region that could result in rupture include segments of the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and Rose Canyon fault systems. These faults are not located within the project area. Additionally, none of the proposed facilities involve human habitation; therefore, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is not applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant. San Diego County has a high seismic potential (County 2009). Although the Phase III project does not propose any facilities involving human habitation, seismic groundshaking has the potential to result in significant structural damage or facility failure, which could result in flooding and/or loss of recycled water. Due to ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-39 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III project components would expose soils that could be subject to erosion during rain and wind events. However, as discussed in below in Section 9a), construction of the proposed Phase III 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 less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-40 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 III project would not affect existing sewer service. No impact would occur. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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: 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 38505(g) defines GHGs to include the following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 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 (CO2e) units for comparison. The CO2e 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 (CO2e = 1), CH4 (CO2e = 21), and N2O (CO2e = 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 CO2e per year. Therefore, a project that emits more than 2,500 MT CO2e 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 III 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 III project, would result in annual GHG emissions of 959 MT CO2e. The worst-case construction scenario is described in greater detail in Section 2b). Construction of the Phase ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-41 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 III 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 III project would include indirect emissions from electricity usage and direct emissions from mobile sources. The Phase III 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 CO2e (California Climate Action Registry 2009). The proposed Phase III 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 III 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 CO2e 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 III project) is 959 MT CO2e. Operation of the Phase III project by itself is estimated to result in operational GHG emissions of less than 397 MT CO2e per year. Neither the construction nor operation of the Phase III project individually would exceed the significance threshold of 2,500 MT CO2e per year. Even if construction and operational emissions would occur simultaneously (totaling 1,356 MT CO2e), annual GHG emissions would not exceed the 2,500 MT CO2e threshold. Therefore, the proposed Phase III 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 CARB 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-42 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Explanation: 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-43 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 laws 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 less 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 laws 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-44 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 GeoTracker database, the EnviroStor database, and the Site Assessment and Mitigation Program. The GeoTracker database is a geographic information system that provides online 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 GeoTracker Database identified approximately 50 recorded sites along the Phase III project alignments and one near the CWRF. Sites were identified along every Phase III 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 III 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 III 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-45 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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? 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-46 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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, Tyvek® 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 VisqueenTM, 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-47 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 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 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, 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? 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? 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 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? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 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 result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Explanation: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant. The Phase III 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 III 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-48 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III project components would affect groundwater recharge because they would not involve the extraction or use of groundwater supplies. Further, each project component would comply ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-49 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-50 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 and habitat integrity. However, construction of the Phase III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 proposesbably an underground pipeline. The Phase III 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 III 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-51 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Phase III 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 Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10. Land Use and Planning Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 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 plan, specific plan, 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 natural communities conservation plan? Explanation: a) Physically divide an established community? Less than significant. The Phase III project proposes underground facilities and improvements on CMWD property containing existing facilities. The Phase III 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 jurisdiction 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 III 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 III 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 III project would not result in any significant land use conflicts or incompatibilities. The Phase III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-52 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Therefore, the Phase III 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 III 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 III project would therefore not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant 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 the state? 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? 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 III 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 III project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-53 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III project would be constructed within roadway ROW or at existing facilities. Additionally, the proposed Phase III 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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: 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-54 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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. Table 4 City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards Zone Applicable Limit (decibels) (1) Time Period Residential Estate, Single-Family Residential, Medium Density Residential, Agricultural, Open Space 50 45 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. High Density, Residential Tourist 55 50 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Commercial 65 60 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Industrial 70 65 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Downtown 65 55 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. (1) 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 III 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 III 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 III project would be primarily associated with vehicular trips by employees. However, as addressed in Section 2, operation of the Phase III project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The Phase III 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 III 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 III 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-55 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 repair activities on any Phase III 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 III 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 III would be generated primarily from project construction. Once installed, the Phase III 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 III project. Phase III 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 III 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 III 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 levels 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? ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-56 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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: 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. Implementation of the Phase III 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 III 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 III was based upon existing and planned land use data for the project area. The Phase III 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-57 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14. Public Services 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? b) Police Protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Explanation: a) Fire Protection? No impact. The Phase III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-58 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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: 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 III project includes improvements to the existing facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The Phase III project does not contain any residential uses or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore, implementation of the Phase III 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 Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No 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 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 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 in substantial safety risks? ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-59 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-60 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road (SANDAG 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 III 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 SANDAG 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III project. Therefore, the Phase III 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 III project. Construction of ES 2 in the railroad ROW would be installed using the trenchless jack-and-bore construction method and would not interfere with railroad operation. Therefore, impacts to alternative transportation would be less than significant. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-61 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 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? 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? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 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 III 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 III 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 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-62 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 III 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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-63 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant 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 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 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 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-1A through Bio-1F 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 III 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: ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-64 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III project. The Phase III 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-1A through Bio-1F, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution toward impacts on special status species within the regional cumulative impact area. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-65 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-66 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III 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 III project would comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations that limit construction hours, and construction of the Phase III project would implement best management practices to minimize construction noise. The Phase III 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 III 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 III, 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 III project would result in a negligible amount of new traffic and would not result in a permanent impact to the regional transportation network. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-67 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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-1A through Bio-1F, 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 III 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-1A through Bio-1F are based on mitigation measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F from the 2012 Master Plans EIR. These measures were slightly modified to be project-specific. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-68 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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 SANDAG for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. March. Available at http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.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://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-69 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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/publicationid/publicationid_149_579.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://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16245&stateid=9&statename=California 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 (SANDAG). 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/ ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-70 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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-1A 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 pruning or removal operations during the prime nestinggeneral 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 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 removal or pruning. 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 no tree pruning or removal operations can 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 prime general breeding season, whichever occurs later. In ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-71 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 addition, prior to any tree removal or pruning operations proposed outside of the prime nesting season but within the period of January 15 to September 15, aA qualified biologist shall confirm, in writing, that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans. Bio-1B Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of 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 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-1C through Bio-1F. Bio-1C Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio- 1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior to and concurrent with construction. Bio-1D Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 through September 15). If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence. Bio-1E Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-72 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of equipment outside of the project boundaries. Bio-1F Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. 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, Tyvek® 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 VisqueenTM ,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. ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-73 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 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. Applicant Concurrence with Mitigation Measures This is to certify that I have reviewed the above mitigating measures and concur with the addition of these measures to the project. Signed Date Printed Name ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-74 September 19, 2012November 14, 2012 This page intentionally left blank. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-1 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 Appendix A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features Regulatory Compliance Construction and operation of the Phase III 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 secured 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 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-2 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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 regulations (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 III 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 recordkeeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms, straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff, and may include measures to minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the following: ■ Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized. ■ Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping. ■ 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). REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-3 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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 clear 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. Table 1 Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals Agency/Department Permit/Approval Action Associated With or Required For State Agencies State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 DWQ Storm Water discharges associated with construction activity. Waste Discharge Requirements (Water Code 13000 et seq.) Discharge of waste that might affect groundwater or surface water (point/nonpoint-source) quality. California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a deferred certification area in the coastal zone. California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit (California Streets and Highways Code Sections 660 et seq.) Consider issuance of permits to cross state highways. Local Agencies City of Vista Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW. City of Carlsbad Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. Discretionary Permit Required for construction activities within the city requiring discretionary approval. Habitat Management Plan Take Permit Required for potential impacts to sensitive species or habitats covered by the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a coastal zone. City of Oceanside Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-4 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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 III project would incorporate the following project design features. Aesthetics The following measures would be implemented into the design and construction of the Phase III project to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase III 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 III 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. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-5 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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, and 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 III 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 III 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, which would determine the risk to the project associated with fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, 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: REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-6 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 − 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 supplied 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 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-7 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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 construction 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 III 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. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-8 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 This page intentionally left blank. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-1 September 19, 2012 Appendix B Sensitive Biological Resources Tables Sensitive Natural Communities Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Community Global Rank(1) State Rank(2) MHCP Habitat Group(3)Mitigation Ratio(4) Non-native grassland G4 S4 E 0.5:1 Valley needlegrass grassland G1 S3.1 B 3:1 Diegan coastal sage scrub G3 S3.1 C 2:1 Diegan coastal sage – chaparral scrub G3 S3.2 C 2:1 Chamise chaparral G4 S4 D 1:1 Scrub oak chaparral G3 S3.3 D 1:1 Southern maritime chaparral G1 S1.1 B 3:1 Southern mixed chaparral G4 S4 D 1:1 Coast live oak woodland G4 S4 B 3:1 Southern coastal live oak riparian forest G3 S4 A 3:1 (No Net Loss) Southern riparian forest G4 S4 Southern riparian scrub G3 S3.2 Coastal and valley freshwater marsh G3 S2.1 San Diego mesa claypan vernal pool G2 S2.1 A 5:1 (1) Global Rank–The global rank is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range. G1 = Critically Imperiled–At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity, very steep 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. (2) State Rank–The state rank refer to the imperilment status only within California’s State boundaries. S1 = 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. S1.1 = very threatened; S1.2 = threatened; S1.3 = 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. (3) 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. (4) 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 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-2 September 19, 2012 Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status(1) State Status(2) CNPS List(3) General Habitat Associations NON-VASCULAR bottle liverwort Sphaerocarpos drewei 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. California screw moss Tortula californica 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Campbell's liverwort Geothallus tuberosus 1B.1 Coastal scrub, vernal pools. coastal triquetrella Triquetrella californica 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Shevock's copper moss Schizymenium shevockii 1B.2 Cismontane woodland. ashy spike-moss Selaginella cinerascens 4.2 Coastal sage scrub, chaparral. Fern California adder’s-tongue fern Ophioglossum lusitanicum ssp. californicum 4.2 Chaparral, grasslands, vernal pools. Angiosperms - Monocotyledons California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica FE SE 1B.1 Vernal pools. Orcutt's brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii 1B.1 Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, chaparral, meadows. San Diego goldenstar Muilla clevelandii 1B.1 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 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Angiosperms - Dicotyledons Blochman's dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae 1B.1 Coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland. California adolphia Adolphia californica 2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. chaparral sand-verbena Abronia villosa var. aurita 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. cliff spurge Euphorbia misera 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri 1B.1 Coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Dean's milk-vetch Astragalus deanei 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest. decumbent goldenbush Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens 1B.2 Coastal scrub. Del Mar manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia FE 1B.1 Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest. Del Mar Mesa sand aster Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. dwarf burr (San Diego) ambrosia Ambrosia pumila FE 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Encinitas baccharis Baccharis vanessae FT SE 1B.1 Chaparral. SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-3 September 19, 2012 Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status(1) State Status(2) CNPS List(3) General Habitat Associations Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii 4.2 Chaparral, coast live oak woodland, grassland. Gambel's water cress Nasturtium gambelii FE ST 1B.1 Marshes and swamps. little mousetail Myosurus minimus ssp. apus 3.1 Vernal pools. many-stemmed dudleya Dudleya multicaulis 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Moran's navarretia Navarretia fossalis FT 1B.1 Vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps, playas. mud nama Nama stenocarpum 2.2 Marshes and swamps. Nuttall's scrub oak Quercus dumosa 1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub. Orcutt's hazardia Hazardia orcuttii FC ST 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. Orcutt’s linanthus Linanthus orcuttii 1B.3 Chaparral. Orcutt's spineflower Chorizanthe orcuttiana FE SE 1B.1 Coastal scrub, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest. Palmer's goldenbush Ericameria palmeri ssp. palmeri 2.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral. Parry's tetracoccus Tetracoccus dioicus 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. prostrate vernal pool navarretia Navarretia prostrata 1B.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Rainbow manzanita Arctostaphylos rainbowensis 1B.1 Chaparral. Robinson's pepper-grass Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. round-leaved filaree California macrophylla 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego barrel cactus Ferocactus viridescens 2.1 Chapparal, Diegan coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego bur-sage Ambrosia chenopodiifolia 2.1 Coastal scrub mostly associated with maritime succulent scrub. San Diego button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii FE SE 1B.1 Vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego marsh-elder Iva hayesiana 2.2 Marshes and swamps, playas. San Diego sagewort Artemisia palmeri 4.2 Riparian, wetland, adjacent uplands. San Diego thorn-mint Acanthomintha ilicifolia FT SE 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. smooth tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, riparian woodland. snake cholla Opuntia californica var. californica 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub. SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-4 September 19, 2012 Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status(1) State Status(2) CNPS List(3) General Habitat Associations southern tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. australis 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (margins), valley and foothill grassland. Southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus var. leopoldii 4.2 Riparian, wetlands, vernal pools. summer holly Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia 1B.2 Chaparral. variegated dudleya Dudleya variegata 1B.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 Monardella viminea FE SE 1B.1 Coastal scrub/alluvial ephemeral washes with adjacent coastal scrub, chaparral, or sycamore woodland. (1) Federal Status – FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD = Delisted (2) State Status – SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened (3) CNPS – 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California; 1B = 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.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened or high degree and immediacy of threat). 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 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-5 September 19, 2012 Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status(1) State Status(2)General Habitat Associations INVERTEBRATES Crustaceans Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE Found in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub habitats. San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE Vernal pools. Insects Hermes copper butterfly Lycaena hermes Found in southern mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub at western edge of Laguna mountains. Harbison’s dun skipper Euphyes vestries harbisoni Riparian woodland, riparian scrub, oak woodland. Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves, such as eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and cypress trees where nectar and water sources are available. AMPHIBIANS Arroyo toad Bufo californicus FE SSC Semi-arid regions near washes, rivers, or intermittent streams, including valley-foothill and desert riparian areas and desert washes. Coast Range newt 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. Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Occurs primarily in ponds located in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. REPTILES Coast (San Diego) horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum (blainvillii population) SSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral in arid and semi-arid climate conditions. Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Brushy or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern California. Coastal western whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Found in deserts and semiarid areas with sparse vegetation and open areas and in woodland and riparian areas. Coronado skink Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis SSC Found in grassland, chaparral, pinyon-juniper and juniper sage woodland, and pine-oak and pine forests. Northern red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber ruber SSC Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland, and desert areas from coastal San Diego County to the eastern slopes of the mountains. Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra SSC Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley-foothill hardwood habitats. Rosy boa Charina trivirgata Found in desert and chaparral habitats from the coast to the Mojave. Prefers moderate to dense vegetation and rocky cover. San Diego ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus similis Found in open, fairly rocky areas and in moist areas near intermittent streams. SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-6 September 19, 2012 Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status(1) State Status(2)General Habitat Associations Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra 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. Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys marmorata pallida SSC Inhabits permanent or nearly permanent bodies of water in many habitat types below 6,000 feet. Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Found in or near permanent fresh water and often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth. BIRDS American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FD SE Found near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water or on cliffs, banks, dunes, or mounds. Bank swallow Riparia riparia ST Nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi SE Inhabits coastal salt marshes. Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli WL Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands of chamise. Found in coastal sage scrub in south of range. Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC Open, dry annual, or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats. Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis SSC Coastal sage scrub with tall Opuntia cactus for nesting and roosting. Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica FT SSC Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas, and on slopes. Cooper's hawk 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. Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Found on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior of the State. Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills, and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos FD SE, SFP Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert. Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC Favors native grasslands with a mix of grasses, forbs, and scattered shrubs. Large-billed savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC Salt marsh. Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE SE Summer resident of southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft. Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC Found in marshlands and borders of ponds and reservoirs which provide ample cover. SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-7 September 19, 2012 Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status(1) State Status(2)General Habitat Associations Light-footed clapper rail Rallus longirostris levipes FE SE Sal marsh. Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oasis’, scrub and washes. Long-eared owl Asio otus SSC Riparian bottomlands with tall willows, cottonwoods, or coast live oaks adjacent to open land with ample prey. Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC Coastal salt and fresh-water marsh. Nest and forage in grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain marshes. Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL Ocean shore, bays, fresh-water lakes, and larger streams. Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly. Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed chaparral. Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE SE Riparian woodlands. Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSC Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with available insect prey. Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus FT SSC Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large alkali lakes. White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Shallow fresh-water marsh. White-tailed kite 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. Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri SSC Prefers riparian plant associations such as willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for nesting and foraging. Also, found in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC Summer resident that inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses. MAMMALS American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Hoary bat 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. Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, and sagebrush. Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus FE SSC Found within 4 km of the coast on fine-grained sandy substrates in coastal sage scrub, coastal strand, and river alluvium. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC Found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-8 September 19, 2012 Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status(1) State Status(2)General Habitat Associations San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Found in coastal sage scrub with intermediate canopy stages of shrub habitats and open shrub / herbaceous and tree / herbaceous edges. San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Moderate to dense canopies of coastal scrub. 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 californicus SSC Found in many open and semi-arid to arid habitats, 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 Myotis ciliolabrum Found in a wide range of habitats near water, 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. (1) Federal Status – FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD = Delisted (2) 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 Attachment B Biological Resources Study Addendum HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com March 30, 2018 KJC-27 Lindsey Stephenson, P.E., Senior Engineer City of Carlsbad Public Works 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Addendum Report to the Biological Resources Study and Adopted IS/MND findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Dear Ms. Stephenson: This document is an update to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted IS/MND) EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012(SCH No. 2012091049) findings for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Phase III Recycled Water Project (Approved Project) located in the City of Carlsbad (city), San Diego County, California. The IS/MND was adopted by the Board of Directors of the CMWD on November 27, 2012. A focused biological resources study was prepared May 15, 2013 by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX), subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND (HELIX 2013). The biological resources study provided specific information necessary in fulfilling State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) CEQA-Plus requirements and CMWD’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (SRF Program) application, which requires demonstration of project conformance with federal policy pertaining to biological resources. As addressed in the Adopted IS/MND, the Approved Project components have been designed to be restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility right-of-way (ROW) areas, access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. The IS/MND determined that the areas being considered for construction of Approved Project components do not support high quality biological resources, and the Approved Project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive biological resources, including those resources protected under federal policy. However, several of the Approved Project components were determined to occur adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, and potential indirect impacts to these resources (e.g., night lighting, construction noise and vibration, runoff, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel) were determined to occur during construction. Potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F as identified in the IS/MND and focused biological resources study. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 2 of 16 March 30, 2018 This update addresses proposed modifications to the Approved Project, which include multiple recycled water pipeline extensions in the northeastern portion of the city and a storage tank relocation in the central part of the city, near Black Rail Road. The proposed modifications include: • Two extensions would be added to the Segment 5 pipelines; one extension would extend the pipeline north on Tamarack Avenue; the other extension would branch off the Marron Road pipeline north on Monroe Street. In addition, minor meter location refinements would be included (Figure 1). • An extension to the Segment 7 pipeline would be added on Tamarack Avenue that would connect a gap in the previously proposed Segment 7 pipelines (Figure 1). • New potable water pipelines, ranging in size from 6-inches to 8-inches in diameter, would be installed in the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (Figure 1; hereafter referred to as Palisades potable water pipelines and Flower Fields potable water pipelines). The pipelines would be installed parallel to the existing potable water pipelines, which would be abandoned in place. These pipelines are located in the same vicinity as portions of the previously proposed Segment 5 alignments. • The 1.5-million gallon (MG) storage tank is proposed to be located on the vacant, pre-graded pad southeast of the existing 8.5 MG storage tank on the D Tank site, near Black Rail Road (see Figure 2, Storage Tank Relocation). The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline adjacent to the site. This location is approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed tank location. The proposed storage tank would have also have security lighting. The following analysis addresses CEQA and federal policy conformance and updates the analysis within the prior Adopted IS/MND as well as the 2013 biological resources letter report. METHODS Prior to conducting the general biological survey, HELIX reviewed the biological resources study for the Approved Project (HELIX 2013), performed an updated search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2017), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Status List (USFWS 2017a), USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2017b), and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2017c) database applications to obtain information regarding federally- protected resources known to occur within the vicinity of the study area. Other primary resources consulted for the study included the CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project IS/MND (Atkins 2012a), City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and City of Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master Plans EIR (Atkins 2012b), Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (City of Carlsbad 1996), and City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (City of Carlsbad 2004). HELIX biologist Amy Mattson conducted a general biological survey on October 3, 2017, between the hours of 10:15 AM and 11:45 AM. The survey covered the two Segment 5 pipeline extensions and the storage tank location to obtain 100 percent visual coverage and verify existing conditions on and in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 100 feet) of each component. The MND prepared for the project did not identify direct or indirect biological impacts associated with Segment 7, and this area was not re-surveyed. From review of aerial imagery, general biological surveys of the potable water pipeline Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 3 of 16 March 30, 2018 alignments were determined to not be warranted due to their alignment parallel to existing pipelines in existing roads. The survey focused on inventorying existing vegetation communities; qualifying habitat suitability and potential for occurrence of federally-listed species protected under the Endangered Species Act; identifying wetlands and other waters of the U.S. protected under the Clean Water Act; identifying potential nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; identifying coastal resources subject to Coastal Zone Management Act policy; and, confirming the absence of Essential Fish Habitat. The entire survey area was surveyed on foot with the aid of binoculars and all observed or detected plant and animal species were recorded in field notes. Animal identifications were made in the field by visual observation or detection of calls, burrows, tracks, scat, and other animal sign. All plant identifications were made in the field. Nomenclature used in this report follows the same conventions as specified in the 2013 biological resources study. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CONFORMANCE ISSUE 1: Special-Status Species Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? Less than significant impact with mitigation. Similar to the Phase III sites analyzed in the Adopted IS/MND, the proposed modifications occur entirely within existing development (i.e., relocation of the storage tank to within an enclosed reclaimed water tank facility) or in developed roads surrounded by existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. The areas surrounding the new extensions are regularly used by vehicles and pedestrians, which present ongoing adverse direct and indirect effects on state- and federally-listed species associated with regular roadway use, encroachment into undeveloped areas, nighttime lighting, and high noise levels. These ongoing effects degrade the existing habitat and deter state- and federally-listed species from using the area. In addition, most of the sites are constrained in all directions by existing developments, thereby reducing the likelihood for state- and federally-listed species to disperse or migrate over the sites and immediate vicinity. The relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in proximity to some of the sites has been reduced to fragmented and low-quality stands of habitat, which are disconnected and isolated from larger habitat blocks in the local and regional area. Most of these off-site stands do not offer the space and resources required by the state- and federally-listed species known to occur in the region. Given these factors, state- and federally-listed species would not be expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of proposed modifications. Further discussion is provided below regarding potential effects of the proposed modifications on state- and federally-listed species. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 4 of 16 March 30, 2018 State-and Federally-Listed Plant Species None of the 54 special-status plant species noted in the Adopted IS/MND have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the Segment 5 extensions, or within the storage tank location. No listed plant species were observed during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. The proposed modifications lack suitable habitat for listed plant species and are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW, disturbed bare earth, or landscaped hillsides associated with previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. No listed plant species would be expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modification sites given the high level of disturbance and overall unsuitability of the existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects on state- and federally-listed plant species are anticipated to occur as a result of proposed modifications. State-and Federally-Listed Animal Species None of the 63 listed animal species noted in the Adopted IS/MND have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the proposed modification sites. No listed animal species were observed or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers, tracks, scat, etc.) during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Therefore, none of the 63 listed animal species have the potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves, and no direct effects would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Special-status wildlife species are also not expected to occur along most of the project modifications. Most of the areas surrounding the proposed modifications are developed and/or subject to anthropogenic disturbances, and the relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in proximity to some of these areas has been reduced to small, fragmented, and low-quality stands, which are disconnected and isolated from habitat in the local and regional area. Undeveloped land occurs to the north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension, west of the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension (coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland), and west of the Segment 7 extension. The Segment 5 Monroe Street extension would be constructed within an existing developed road between a shopping center and its parking lot; however, Buena Vista Creek occurs to the north of the proposed modification. The Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension would also be located within an existing developed road; however, coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland is present on the slope west of Tamarack Avenue. Disturbed habitat and patches of eucalyptus woodland are next to the roadway along Segment 7. The Flower Fields potable water pipelines would be constructed within an existing multi-family residential apartment complex, buffered by residences from adjacent land uses; landscaped trees are present with the complex. The Palisades potable water pipelines would be constructed within an existing single-family residential neighborhood, buffered by residences from adjacent land uses; landscaped trees are present with the neighborhood. The storage tank is proposed within an existing reclaimed water tank facility (the D Tank facility). The area proposed for the storage tank is a graded pad, characterized by sparse, primarily horticultural vegetation. Some large trees, including eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), are present in landscaped areas within the facility. Trees are also present by the new sections of Segment 5. Within all of these areas, no trees, shrubs, or sensitive habitat would be directly Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 5 of 16 March 30, 2018 disturbed by these modifications, except for a small portion of ornamental landscaped vegetation at the Palisades potable water pipelines. Potential indirect effects on state- and federally-listed animal species from construction of the proposed modifications could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition, construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may support state- and federally-listed animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction; however, CMWD has committed to daytime construction hours, and construction of the proposed modifications would not require the use of nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into sensitive biological areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant. Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas could be potentially adverse and significant to state- and federally-listed species if construction would occur during the breeding season and if the species would be nesting in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F from the 2012 IS/MND below would reduce potentially adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting state- and federally-listed species to less than significant levels. With the implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications would not likely adversely affect nesting state-listed species, there would be less than significant impact with mitigation, and the proposed modifications would be in conformance with CEQA. Mitigation The following measures taken from the Adopted IS/MND would mitigate potential adverse effects and significant impacts on state- and federally-listed species to less than significant levels. Bio-1A Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, the CMWD shall enforce the following: Prior to construction activities requiring the removal, pruning, or damage of any trees, shrubs, and man- made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) during general breeding seasons, that being from January 15 to September 15, the city shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component. If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction, or if any active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for construction, the city shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor construction activities. No construction activities shall occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nest or until the end of the general breeding season, whichever occurs later. A qualified biologist shall confirm, in writing, that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 6 of 16 March 30, 2018 activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the city Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans. Bio-1B Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of the storage tank and the new extensions on Segment 5 and 7, that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species) or trees, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre- construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project plans that clearly depict the construction work limits, including construction staging and storage areas, in order to determine which specific portion(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space areas during the pre-construction survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of the adjacent open space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the likelihood for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the area. The pre-construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior to construction in order to verify the need for additional construction measures proposed within Bio-1C through Bio-1F. Bio-1C Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the city Planner prior to and concurrent with construction. Bio-1D Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 through September 15). If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 7 of 16 March 30, 2018 activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer with the city Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence. Bio-1E Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval by the city Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of equipment outside of the project boundaries. Bio-1F Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. ISSUE 2: Sensitive Natural Communities Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Sensitive natural communities have been reported at locations in the vicinity of the proposed modifications. Wetland habitats associated with Buena Vista Creek are present to the north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. Coastal sage scrub- eucalyptus woodland is present west of the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension and to the east and west of Segment 7. None of these communities are located within the footprints of the individual project components. The potable water pipelines are not located adjacent to sensitive natural communities. As discussed in CEQA Issue 1, all of the proposed modifications are located within existing development (i.e., relocation of the storage tank site to within an enclosed reclaimed water tank facility) or in developed roads. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. Therefore, sensitive natural communities are considered to be absent from the proposed modification sites and no direct impacts would occur. Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad located within the reclaimed water tank facility. Cracked soils and three plant species that typically occupy ponded areas were observed, none of which is considered an indicator species for vernal pools (United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 1997). These were grass poly (Lythrum hyssopifolium), sand-spurrey (Spergularia sp.), and toad rush (Juncus bufonius). The bodies of seed shrimp also were noted in this area. Compaction of the pad and a small earthen berm around the edge of this pad are likely responsible for the observed ponding. Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this area would not be considered federally jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development pad, the absence of vernal pool indicators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential for any listed species, this feature Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 8 of 16 March 30, 2018 is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter-Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the City of Carlsbad. Construction activities associated with project modifications in the Segment 5 and 7 extensions could result in potential runoff and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would be considered significant. As the potable water pipelines are not located adjacent to sensitive natural communities, no indirect impacts from runoff and pollutants would occur. Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas for the Segment 5 and 7 extensions would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the Adopted IS/MND, such as implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP), and compliance with other applicable regulations. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B through Bio-1F would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards discussed in Section 9 of the Adopted IS/MND and implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B through Bio-1F. ISSUE 3: Wetlands Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the federal CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No portions of the proposed modification boundaries contain any areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from USACE. The proposed modifications would be constructed entirely within upland areas that do not support wetlands or other waters of the U.S. subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of USACE. Therefore, no direct effects to federally-protected wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would occur. As discussed in CEQA Issue 2, evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad located within the reclaimed water tank facility. Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this area would not be considered federally jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development pad, the absence of vernal pool indicators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential for any listed species, this feature is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter- Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the City of Carlsbad. The new pipeline sections analyzed in this study will be constructed entirely within existing roads designed with curb, gutter, and storm drain features to accommodate stormwater. Therefore, runoff from these would enter into existing storm drain facilities, which may discharge into nearby wetlands. For example, the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension is located within a shopping center built just east of Buena Vista Lagoon and south of Buena Vista Creek. The storage tank would be constructed on a graded development pad, which has a small berm at the downslope edge to restrict water runoff. Potential indirect effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may occur if runoff from Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 9 of 16 March 30, 2018 construction work areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that discharge into downstream wetland areas. Potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other protective measures incorporated into the project as mandatory requirements for regulatory compliance. These include acquisition of a Storm Water General Permit and General Linear Utility Permit, in addition to compliance with local development standards, including the preparation of SWPPPs and application of appropriate BMPs. Construction activities would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California’s Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4 permit). Proposed modifications not falling within the coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For proposed modifications covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a SWPPP prescribing BMPs, monitoring, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms, straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff, and may include measures to minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the following: • Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized. • Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 10 of 16 March 30, 2018 • Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels. • Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the proposed modifications and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents. • Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are detained (e.g., siltation basins). Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B, Bio-1C, Bio-1E, and Bio-1F would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the incorporation of the above- referenced protective measures, the project would not result in any adverse effects on federally- protected wetlands and would be in conformance with CEQA and the CWA. ISSUE 4: Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant. As discussed in the Adopted IS/MND, the biological resources analysis included a thorough review of information pertaining to the Carlsbad HMP and Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), including regional corridors and habitat linkages. No known wildlife corridors, linkages, or nursery sites occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. All of the sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW, or previously graded areas. The sites do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of any local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. No suitable habitat exists that would support a nursery site. Construction and operation of the project would not be expected to adversely affect the wildlife movement functions and values of existing habitat in the immediate vicinity of project sites. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant. ISSUE 5: Local Policies and Ordinances Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. None of the proposed modifications that occur within the boundaries of the coastal zone would impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area or other protected resources, as identified within the approved Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; therefore, the project would not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant. Projects located within Carlsbad are subject to the requirements of the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 11 of 16 March 30, 2018 the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (HPMR) Ordinance. The HPMR requires all development to comply with the Carlsbad HMP as well as the Implementing Agreement, the MHCP, the Natural Communities Conservation Plan and 10(a)(1)(B) permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be permitted to occur until all processing and permitting requirements of the HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled. ISSUE 6: Adopted Conservation Plans Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. As evaluated in CEQA Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4, several project components could result in potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the city’s HMP. The CMWD is required to comply with the city’s HMP and provisions of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the HPMR Ordinance. Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the City of Carlsbad Planning Division are required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the project description to be consistent with the conditions of the city’s HMP. In addition, projects are required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described in the city’s HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely affected by the project. Avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required, potential impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the city’s HMP requirements. Implementation of the Phase III project, including the proposed modifications, would therefore not conflict with the adopted city’s HMP and no impacts would occur. FEDERAL CONFORMANCE ISSUE 1: Federal Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? For the same reasons discussed in CEQA Issue 1, the proposed modifications do not directly impact federally-listed species, and are not likely to result in indirect impacts to these species. Further, none of the proposed modifications occur within undeveloped areas supporting naturalized habitat and designated by the USFWS as Critical Habitat for federally-listed species. None of the sites support the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for any federally-listed species. Therefore, the proposed modifications will have no effect on Critical Habitat. Further discussion is provided below regarding potential effects of the proposed modifications on federally-listed species. Federally-Listed Plant Species None of the 12 listed plant species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013) have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the Segment 5 extensions, or within the storage tank location. No listed plant species were observed during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. As discussed in CEQA Issue 1, listed plant species are not likely to occur in or near the proposed Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 12 of 16 March 30, 2018 modifications. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects on federally-listed plant species are anticipated to occur as a result of proposed modifications. Federally-Listed Animal Species None of the nine listed animal species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013) have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the proposed modification sites. No listed animal species were observed or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers, tracks, scat, etc.) during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Therefore, none of the nine listed animal species have the potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves, and no direct effects would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. However, six of the nine federally-listed species have a potential to occur within off-site habitat located in the immediate vicinity (i.e., at locations within 100 feet) of the proposed modifications locations, as follows: • San Diego fairy shrimp has low potential to occur within the temporarily ponded area located on the graded development pad, within 100 feet of the proposed storage tank location. • Coastal California gnatcatcher has the potential to nest within off-site coastal sage scrub- eucalyptus woodland, to the west of Tamarack Avenue along the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension. • Least Bell’s vireo has the potential to nest within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in the area in 2015 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 2017). • Light-footed clapper rail is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in 2007 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 2017). • Southwestern willow flycatcher is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a temporary migrant within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the area in 1984 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 2017). • Western snowy plover is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a wintering resident within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in 1995, but is presumed extirpated (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 2017). Potential indirect effects on federally-listed animal species from construction of the proposed modifications could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition, Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 13 of 16 March 30, 2018 construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may support federally-listed animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction; however, CMWD has committed to daytime construction hours and construction of the proposed modifications would not require the use of nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into sensitive biological areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant. Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas could be potentially adverse and significant on federally-listed species only if construction would occur during the breeding season and if the species would be nesting in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. As identified above, coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell’s vireo represent the only federally-listed species with potential to nest in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. Indirect effects on San Diego fairy shrimp could also occur as a result of construction equipment and personnel entering into sensitive basin habitat. Potentially adverse indirect effects would not be anticipated to occur to federally-listed species within the potential to forage (only) within adjacent habitat, such as the light-footed clapper rail, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western snowy plover. Species with the potential to forage (only) would only be expected to use the adjacent habitat temporarily and would be able to relocate into alternative foraging areas without being harmed. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F, listed above, would reduce potentially adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting federally-listed species to less than significant levels. With the implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications would not likely adversely affect nesting federally-listed species and the project would be in conformance with the ESA. ISSUE 2: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that may adversely affect essential fish habitat? The new Approved Project components would be constructed within disturbed and/or developed upland areas that lack marine resources and Essential Fish Habitat regulated under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No Essential Fish Habitat occurs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat and would be in conformance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. ISSUE 3: Coastal Zone Management Act Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone? The new storage tank location and the Palisades potable water pipelines are located within the Coastal Zone. The new pipeline extensions for Segment 5 and 7 and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines are located outside of the Coastal Zone. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 14 of 16 March 30, 2018 Development within the coastal zone boundaries are subject to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance, and the California Coastal Act (CCA) and would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The city’s LCP was approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1996 and the latest amendment was approved in 2016. The city acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects within its coastal zone, with a few exceptions. There are areas of “deferred certification” where the state retains its permitting authority. All projects in the coastal zone would require review for consistency with the LCP and CCA prior to issuance of a CDP, which would occur once preliminary design drawings were prepared. This would ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the LCP; individual components would require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. The storage tank and potable water pipelines that occur within the Coastal Zone would not adversely affect or impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or other protected coastal resources identified within the approved city’s LCP. The proposed modifications would not conflict with the city’s LCP, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. ISSUE 4: Migratory Bird Treaty Act Will the project affect protected migratory birds that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area? The proposed modifications would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of developed and undeveloped areas characterized by trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings, water tanks, etc.) that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common and sensitive bird species, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Common bird species with the potential to nest in the vicinity of project components include species such as California towhee (Melozone crissalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii). Sensitive bird species with the potential to nest include federally-listed species such as coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell’s vireo, in addition to non-listed sensitive species such as southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Indirect effects could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest (or nests on man-made structures), such that the disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. These potential adverse effects on nesting birds and raptors would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1A identified within CEQA Issue 1 would mitigate this potential adverse effect to a less than significant level. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1A, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 15 of 16 March 30, 2018 ISSUE 5: Protection of Wetlands Does any portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers? Please refer to CEQA Issue 3 for a discussion of the proposed modifications and wetlands. With the incorporation of the protective measures referenced in CEQA Issue 3, the project would not result in any adverse effects on federally-protected wetlands and would be in conformance with the CWA. ISSUE 6: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river? None of the proposed modifications are planned on or in the immediate vicinity of areas designated as Wild and Scenic River. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect any areas designated as Wild and Scenic River and would be in conformance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Sincerely, Amy Mattson Biologist Enclosures: Figure 1: Pipeline Improvements Figure 2: Storage Tank Relocation Attachment A Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Status List Letter to Ms. Stephenson Page 16 of 16 March 30, 2018 REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2017. RareFind 5. Data accessed October. Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). 2012a. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH No. 2012091049. Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. November. 2012b. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Available on- file at the City of Carlsbad. SCH No. 2012021006. October. City of Carlsbad. 2004. Final Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Final approval November 2004, including implementing agreement and terms and conditions. Available at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_149_579.pdf. 1996. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2010 Amendments. August 14. On-file at the City of Carlsbad and available at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/coastal/default.asp. HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2017. Update to the Biological Resources Study and IS/MND findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project. October 13. 2013. Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project. May 15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Species Lists and Occurrence Information for Multiple Species within Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm, and http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/gis/cfwogis.html. 2017b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. February 9. 2017c. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. October 2. Cannon RoadE l C a mi n o Re al C arls b a d Villa g e D rive Hig hla n d Drive A¸ M a r r o n R o a d Marron Road Tam arack AvenueTamarack AvenueTama ra ck Avenue !"^$ Segment 5 Segment 5 Flower FieldsNeighborhood Carlsbad PalisadesNeighborhood Segment 7 Figure 1Pipeline ImprovementsI:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-27_Carlsbad_MWD\Map\IS_MND\Fig1_PipelineImprove.mxd KJC-27 3/29/2018 -RPSource: Aerial Photo (SanGIS, 2014) Project Features (Kennedy Jenks 2017)K Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND 0 2,000 Feet Segment 5 2012 Alignment Proposed Modification to Segment 5 Segment 7 2012 Alignment Proposed Modification to Segment 7 Proposed Potable Water Alignments New Proposed Tank Former Proposed Tank F i s h e r m a nDriveBlack Rail RoadSitio CedrelaTriton Street New Crest Court Poinsettia Lane Figure 2Storage Tank RelocationI:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-27_Carlsbad_MWD\Map\IS_MND\Fig2_StorageTankRelocation.mxd KJC-27 12/11/2017 -RPSource: Aerial Photo (SanGIS, 2014)K Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND 0 150 Feet Proposed Access Road Inlet/Outlet Piping New Proposed Tank Location Drain 2012 Proposed Tank Location Attachment A Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Offi ce Species Status List FEDERALLY LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND DELISTED TAXA IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CARLSBAD FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Abbrev. Lead Office State Status Fed. Status LISTING FEDERAL REGISTER DOCS RECOVERY DISTRIBUTION [2] Date Listed Critical Habitat [3]Other Plan 5-Year Review RPN [4]LAORSDIN KESB RI IM PLANTS * 58 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 48 TAXA Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thornmint ACIL CFWO SE FT 13-Oct-98 f-08 2009 8X Acanthoscyphus parishii var.goodmaniana (Oxytheca p. var. g.)[1] Cushenbury oxytheca ACPAGOCFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02 D 97 2009 9C X Acmispon dendroideus var. traskiae (Lotus d. subsp. traskiae) [1] San Clemente Island lotus ACDETR CFWO SE FT 11-Aug-77 Reclass 26-Jul-13 F 84 2012 15 X Allium munzii Munz's onion ALMU CFWO ST FE 13-Oct-98 fr-13 2013 8C X Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia AMPU CFWO FE 2-Jul-02 f-10 2010 11C X X Arctostaphylos glandulosa subsp. crassifolia Del Mar manzanita ARGLCR CFWO FE 7-Oct-96 2010 6C X Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort ARPA VFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2008 2X X Astragalus albens Cushenbury milk-vetch ASAL CFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02 CHMS 2003 D 97 2009 8C X Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch ASBR VFWO FE 29-Jan-97 f-06 F 99 2009 2XX X Astragalus jaegerianus Lane Mountain milk-vetch ASJA CFWO FE 6-Oct-98 fr-11 Reclass not warranted 14-05-02 2008 5X Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae Coachella Valley milk- vetch ASLECO CFWO FE 6-Oct-98 f-13 2009 6C X Astragalus magdalenae var.peirsonii Peirson's milk-vetch ASMAPE CFWO SE FT 6-Oct-98 fr-08 Delist not warranted 17-Jul-08 2008 9X Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus Ventura marsh milk-vetch ASPYLA VFWO SE FE 21-May-01 f-04 2010 6C X X Astragalus tener var. titi coastal dunes milk-vetch ASTETI VFWO SE FE 12-Aug-98 F 05 2009 6C X X Astragalus tricarinatus triple-ribbed milk-vetch ASTR CFWO FE 6-Oct-98 2009 14 X X Atriplex coronata var.notatior San Jacinto Valley crownscale ATCONOCFWO FE 13-Oct-98 fr-13 2012 9C X Baccharis vanessae Encinitas baccharis BAVA CFWO SE FT 7-Oct-96 2011 5C X Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry BENE CFWO SE FE 13-Oct-98 f-08 2009 8X X XX Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea BRFI CFWO SE FT 13-Oct-98 f-11 2009 8C X X X X X Castilleja cinerea ash-gray paintbrush CACI CFWO FT 14-Sep-98 f-07 2013 8X Castilleja grisea San Clemente Island paintbrush CAGR CFWO SE FT 11-Aug-77 Downlist 26-Jul-13 F 84 2012 14 X Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus CEOP CFWO SE FT 13-Oct-98 f-07 2013 8C X Cercocarpus traskiae Catalina Island mountain- mahogany CETR CFWO SE FE 8-Aug-97 2007 8X Chloropyron maritimum subsp. maritimum (Cordylanthus maritimus subsp. maritimus)[1] salt marsh bird's-beak CHMAM CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-78 F 85 2009 9XXX Chorizanthe orcuttiana Orcutt's spineflower CHOR CFWO SE FE 7-Oct-96 2014 5X Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina San Fernando Valley spineflower CHPAFE VFWO SE FC 25-Oct-99 CNOR Update 22-Nov- 13 NA X X Deinandra conjugens (Hemizonia c.) [1] Otay tarplant DECO CFWO SE FT 13-Oct-98 f-02 F 04 2009 8C X Delphinium variegatum subsp. kinkiense San Clemente Island larkspur DEVAKI CFWO SE FE 11-Aug-77 F 84 2008 15 X Dodecahema leptoceras [1] slender-horned spineflower DOLE CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-87 2010 7C X X X Dudleya cymosa subsp. ovatifolia Santa Monica Mountains dudleya DUCYOVVFWO FT 29-Jan-97 F 99 2009 6XX Dudleya stolonifera Laguna Beach live-forever DUST CFWO ST FT 13-Oct-98 2010 8X Eremogone ursina (Arenaria ursina) [1] Bear Valley sandwort ERUR CFWO FT 14-Sep-98 f-07 2008 8X Eriastrum densifolium subsp.sanctorum Santa Ana River woolly-star ERDESA CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-87 2010 6C X X X Erigeron parishii Parish's daisy ERPA CFWO FT 24-Aug-94 f-02 CHMS 2003 D 97 2009 8C X X Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum southern mountain wild buckwheat ERKEAU CFWO FT 14-Sep-98 f-07 2008 9X Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum Cushenbury buckwheat EROVVI CFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02 CHMS 2003 D 97 2009 9C X Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button celery ERARPA CFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2010 9C X X Fremontodendron mexicanum Mexican flannelbush FRME CFWO SR FE 13-Oct-98 f-07 2009 8X Grindelia fraxino-pratensis Ash Meadows gumplant GRFRPR NFWO SR FT 20-May-85 f-85 F 90 2008 14 X Helianthemum greenei Island rush-rose HEGR VFWO FT 13-Jul-97 F 00 2010 14 X Lithophragma maximum San Clemente Island woodland star LIMA CFWO SE FE 8-Aug-97 F 84 2007 2X Malacothamnus clementinus San Clemente Island bush-mallow MACL CFWO SE FE 11-Aug-77 Reclass not warranted F 84 2012 8C X Page 1 of 4 10/4/2017https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm 16-May-12 Monardella viminea (M. linoides subsp. v.) [1] willowy monardella MOVI CFWO SE FE 13-Oct-98 fr-12 2012 8X Nasturtium gambelii (Rorippa gambelii) [1] Gambel's watercress NAGA VFWO ST FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2011 5XXX X Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia NAFO CFWO FT 13-Oct-98 f-10 F 98 2009 8X X X Nitrophila mohavensis Amargosa niterwort NIMO NFWO SE FE 20-May-85 f-85 F 90 2008 X Oenothera californica subsp. eurekensis (O. avita subsp. e.) Eureka Valley evening- primrose OECAEU CFWO SR FE 26-Apr-78 Proposed Delisting 27-Feb-14 F 82 2007 6X Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass ORCA CFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2011 11C X X X Pentachaeta lyonii Lyon's pentachaeta PELY VFWO SE FE 29-Jan-97 f-06 F 99 2008 2C X Physaria kingii subsp. bernardina (Lesquerella k. subsp. b.)[1] San Bernardino Mountains bladderpod PHKIBE CFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02 CHMS 2003 D 97 2009 9C X Poa atropurpurea San Bernardino bluegrass POAT CFWO FE 14-Sep-98 f-08 2008 2XX Pogogyne abramsii San Diego mesa mint POAB CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-78 F 98 2010 8C X Pogogyne nudiuscula Otay mesa mint PONU CFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2010 2C X Sibara filifolia Santa Cruz Island rock-cress SIFI CFWO FE 8-Aug-97 2012 11 X Sidalcea pedata pedate checker-mallow SIPE CFWO SE FE 31-Aug-84 F 98 2011 5C X Swallenia alexandrae Eureka Dune grass SWAL CFWO SR FE 26-Apr-78 Proposed delisting 27-Feb-14 F-82 2007 6X Taraxacum californicum California taraxacum TACA CFWO FE 14-Sep-98 f-08 2013 5X Thelypodium stenopetalum slender-petaled mustard THST CFWO SE FE 31-Aug-84 F 98 2011 5C X Trichostema austromontanum subsp. compactum Hidden Lake bluecurls TRAUCOCFWO FT 14-Sep-98 npf-07 2013 15 X Verbesina dissita big-leaved crown beard VEDI CFWO ST FT 7-Oct-96 2010 11C X Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree YUBR 90 day finding_14_Sept_16 INVERTEBRATES * 10 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 9 TAXA Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp VPFS SFWO FT 19-Sep-94 f-05 F 05 2007 2C X Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp SDFS CFWO FE 3-Feb-97 f-07 F 98 2008 8C X X Danaus plexippus plexippus Monarch butterfly DAPLPL R03 Pos. 90 DF to list 31-Dec-2014 XXXXXX X X Dinacoma caseyi Casey's June beetle CJB CFWO FE 22-Sep-11 f-11 RPO 2013 11C X Euphilotes battoides allyni El Segundo blue butterfly ESB CFWO FE 1-Jun-76 p-77 F 98 2008 9X Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot butterfly QCB CFWO FE 16-Jan-97 f-09 F 03 2009 9C X X X X Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Palos Verdes blue butterfly PVB CFWO FE 2-Jul-80 f-80 F 84 2014 6X Helminthoglypta (coyote) greggi Mohave shoulderband snail MSS CFWO Pos. 90 DF to list X Lycaena hermes Hermes copper butterfly HCB CFWO FC CAND Assess 2013 NA X Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Laguna Mountains skipper LMS CFWO FE 16-Jan-97 f-06 2007 3C X Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Delhi Sands flower-loving fly DSF CFWO FE 23-Sep-93 F 97 2008 6C X X Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp RFS CFWO FE 3-Aug-93 fr-12 F 98 2008 8C X X X X FISH * 9 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 2 TAXA Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker SAS CFWO SSC FT 12-Apr-00 f-10 D 14 2011 5C X X X X Cyprinodon macularius desert pupfish DEPU R02 SE FE 31-Mar-86 f-86 F 93 2010 2C X X X Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby TWG VFWO SSC FE 4-Feb-94 f-13 Proposed Reclass 13-Mar- 14 F 05 2007 7C X X Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni unarmored threespine stickleback UTS VFWO SE FE 13-Oct-70 wd-02 F 85 2009 6C X X X Gila bicolor mohavensis Mohave tui chub MTC CFWO SE FE 13-Oct-70 F 84 2009 6X Gila elegans bonytail chub BOCH R06 SE FE 23-Apr-80 f-94 2002 2012 5C X X X Oncorhynchus mykiss steelhead (southern California ESU) SCSH NMFS SSC FE 5-Jan-06 f-05 F 12 3XXX Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado Pikeminnow COPI R06 SE FE 24-Jul-85 f-94 F 02 8C X X X Xyrauchen texanus razorback sucker RASU R06 SE FE 23-Oct-91 f-94 2002 2012 1C X X X AMPHIBIANS * 4 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 1 TAXON Anaxyrus californicus (Bufo microscaphus c.)[1] arroyo toad (a. southwestern t.) ARTO VFWO SSC FE 16-Dec-94 f-11 Proposed Reclass Reopen 17-Oct-14 F 99 2009 8XXX XX Batrachoseps major aridus (B. a.) [1] desert slender salamander DSS CFWO SE FE 4-Jun-73 F 82 2014 6X Page 2 of 4 10/4/2017https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog FYLF SFWO Pos. 90 DF petition to list Jul--1- 2015 X Rana draytonii (R. aurora d.)[1] California red-legged frog CRLF SFWO SSC FT 23-May-96 fr-10 F 02 5C X X X X X Rana muscosa mountain yellow-legged frog (southern California DPS) MYLF CFWO SE FE 2-Jul-02 f-06 2012 3X XX Spea hammondii or Scaphiopus hammondii western spadefoot toad WST SFWO Pos. 90 DF petition to list Jul--1- 2015 XXX XX REPTILES * 3 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 1 TAXON Actinemys marmorata Western pond turtle WPT CFWO Pos 90 DF petition to list 10- Apr-2015 XXX XX Gopherus agassizii desert tortoise (Mojave population DPS) DETO NFWO ST FT 2-Apr-90 f-94 R 11 2010 12C X X X Uma inornata Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard CVFTL CFWO SE FT 25-Sep-80 f-80 F 85 2010 5C X Xantusia riversiana island night lizard INL CFWO NA DL 11-Aug-77 Recovery/ Delisted 1-Apr- 14; F 84 2012 14 X BIRDS * 16 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 7 TAXA Amphispiza belli clementeae San Clemente sage sparrow SCSS CFWO SSC FT 11-Aug-77 F 84 2009 9X Brachyramphus marmoratus marbled murrelet MAMU R01 SE FT 1-Oct-92 fr-10 F 97 2009 2C X X Charadrius nivosus nivosus (C. alexandrinus n.)[1] western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population DPS) WSP AFWO SSC FT 5-Mar-93 fr-12 F 07 2006 3C X X X Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo (western DPS) YBCU SFWO SE T 3-Oct-14 p-14 Reopen comment pch 12-Nov-14 NA X X X X X X Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher SWFL R02 SE FE 27-Feb-95 fr-13 F 02 2014 3C X X X X X X Gymnogyps californianus California condor CACO VFWO SE FE 11-Mar-67 f-77 F 96 2013 4C X X X Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle BAEA R03 SE DL 14-Feb-78 PDM Plan 04-Jun-10 F 86 NA X X X X X X Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi San Clemente loggerhead shrike SCLS CFWO SSC FE 11-Aug-77 F 84 2009 12 X Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican BRPE VFWO DL 4-Feb-85 Draft PDM Plan 30-Sep-09 F 83 2007 NA X X X X X X Phoebastria albatrus short-tailed albatross STAL R07 SSC FE 31-Jul-00 F 08 2009 8XXX Melozone crissalis eremophilus (Pipilo crissalis eremophilus)Inyo California towhee INCT CFWO SE FT 2-Sep-87 Proposed Delist 04- Nov-13 F 98 2008 Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher CAGN CFWO SSC FT 30-Mar-93 f-07 Proposed Delist Dec-31-2014 2010 9C X X X X X Rallus obsoletus levipes (R. longirostris l.) light-footed Ridgway's rail (light-footed clapper rail) LFCR CFWO SE FE 8-Mar-69 F 85 2009 6XXX Rallus obsoletus yumanensis (R. longirostris y.)Yuma Ridgway's rail (Yuma clapper rail) YUCR R02 ST FE 11-Mar-67 D 10 2006 6XXX Sternula antillarum browni (Sterna a. b.) [1] California least tern CLT CFWO SE FE 8-Mar-69 F 85 2006 15C X X X X X Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo LBV CFWO SE FE 2-May-86 f-94 D 98 2006 9C X X X X X X MAMMALS * 8 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 7 TAXA Dipodomys merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat SBKR CFWO SSC FE 27-Jan-98 f-02 2009 6C X X X Glaucomys sabrinus californicus San Bernardino flying squirrel SBFS CFWO SSC NA Pos 90D Petition to List 1-Feb-12 NA X X Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat SKR CFWO ST FE 30-Sep-88 12MF delisting not warranted 19-Aug-10 D 97 2011 11 X X X Page 3 of 4 10/4/2017https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm Enhydra lutris nereis southern sea otter SSO VFWO FP FT 11-Aug-87 TerminateSSO XP and Trans Plan F 03 9C X X X Microtus californicus scirpensis Amargosa vole AMVO CFWO SE FE 15-Nov-84 f-84 F 97 2009 6X Ovis canadensis nelsoni Nelson bighorn sheep (Peninsular Range DPS; Peninsular bighorn sheep) PBS CFWO ST FE 18-Mar-98 f-09 F 00 2011 9C X X X Perognathus longimembris pacificus Pacific pocket mouse PPM CFWO SSC FE 3-Feb-94 F 98 2010 6C X X X Urocyon littoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox CAIF CFWO ST FE 5-Mar-04 W-05 D 12 9X LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS State Status: SE = endangered; ST = threatened; sde = delisted; SR = rare; SSC = species of special concern Federal Status: FE = endangered; FT = threatened; FC = candidate for listing; P- = proposed; PW = proposal withdrawn; DL = delisted; PDM = post delisting monitoring plan; X* = experimental population; 90D = 90-day finding; 12M = 12-month finding. Critical Habitat: p = Proposed; f = Final; pr = Proposed Revised; fr = Final Revised. Recovery Plan: F = Final-year published, D = Draft-year published Distribution (historical county occurrences): LA = Los Angeles; O = Orange; SD = San Diego; IN = Inyo; KE = Kern; SB = San Bernardino; Riv = Riverside; Imp = Imperial * Plant names format: scientific name including synonym, if any, followed by common name in parentheses [e.g. Allium munzii (Munz's onion); Eremogone ursina (Arenaria ursina) (Bear Valley sandwort)] Animal names format: common name including name of DPS, if any, followed by scientific name (including synonyms, if any) in parentheses [e.g. Santa Ana sucker (Catastomus santaanae); western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population DPS) (Charadrius nivosus nivosus (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus))] [1] Current name, followed by name still listed in CFR in parentheses. Cite "current name (older name)" form in the beginning of a document but use current name throughout. [2] For species' distribution refer to the most recent 5-Year Review or utilize the "Distribution" link to access the ECOS Mapper. [3] For species' critical habitat description and boundaries refer to the final critical habitat rule or utilize the "Critical Habitat" link to access the ECOS critical habitat Mapper. [4] RPN (Recovery Priority Number; distinctions relate to degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic rank, and conflict (NA = not applicable) LIST REVISED July 6, 2015. SEND CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO JANE HENDRON (jane_hendron@fws.gov, 760-431-9440) Page 4 of 4 10/4/2017https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO_Species_Status_List%20.htm Attachment C Cultural Resource Inventory Addendum March 26, 2018 Ms. Joanne Dramko, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 RE: Revised 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 III Recycled Water Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (ASM Project No. 20460.02) Dear Ms. Dramko, In 2013 ASM Affiliates Inc. (ASM) was subcontracted by Helix Environmental, Inc. to conduct a Class I cultural resource inventory for the proposed Phase III Recycled Water Project (Project) located in the city of Carlsbad in the county of San Diego, California. The inventory included a literature and record search conducted at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) and a search of the Sacred Lands Files of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This study was completed in 2013 with the report prepared and formally submitted in 2014 (Daniels and Becker 2014). Since the time of the initial report submittal there has been several segments appended to the original Project APE that this letter report will now address as an addendum to the original study. The results of original Class I cultural resource inventory can be found in the 2014 report Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project prepared by ASM Archaeologists James T. Daniels and Mark Becker. In summary, the results of the previous report determined that all the identified cultural resources would be either avoided or were determined to be not significant or mitigated to less than significant impacts by prior studies. Accordingly, this letter report will only address the Class I Cultural Inventory results for the appended Project APE as the potential impacts along prior proposed segments has already been examined in the original report. The original 2013 SCIC record search data set was also re-utilized in the current study as the original record search boundary included a quarter-mile search radius. A check of the appended Project segments shows that none of the currently appended segments fall outside of the original quarter-mile search radius used in the original report. This investigation was conducted in compliance with CEQA Plus, which includes compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as CEQA. Section 106 is applicable to federal undertakings, including projects financed or permitted by federal agencies, regardless of whether the activities occur on land that is managed by federal agencies, other government agencies, or private landowners. The Phase III project is in part funded by the State Revolving Fund for the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB). The goal of the inventory was to determine the location of previously recorded archaeological sites that intersect and are directly adjacent to the proposed area of potential effect (APE) in an effort to make appropriate recommendations on locations for archaeological monitoring along the proposed project APE. This addendum to the original Class I Inventory was conducted to provide adequate information regarding March 26, 2018 Page 2 of 7 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 Avenue, 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). March 26, 2018 Page 3 of 7 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 ¼-mi. radius of the APE but not intersecting it may be found in Confidential Appendix B of the original 2014 report. Table 1. Previous Cultural Resource Studies Overlapping the Appended Portions of the Project APE NADB No. Authors Date Title Portions of Appended APE Addressed Unfiled Susan Hector 1981 Assessment of Archaeological Site SDM-W-133, Carlsbad, California 5 1121129 Susan Hector 1985 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad. 5 1121984 WESTEC Services 1980 Regional Historic Preservation Study Tank D 1122296 Environmental Impact Profiles 1973 Environmental Impact Report for the Planned Community – Carlsbad Palisades 5 1122374 Dennis Gallegos 1992 Archaeological Test Report for Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-6819, Carlsbad, CA. Tank D 1122598 Sue Wade 1992 Archaeological Evaluations at Calavera Hills SDI- 5416, Archaeological Testing at SDI-12470, SDI-12471 5, 7 1124111 Larry Seemans 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Report: Revised Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad, California 5,7 1124229 Charles Bull 1977 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Lake Calvera Hills Plan Area 5,7 1124263 Brian F. Mooney Associates 1991 Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of the Carlsbad Zone 20 Specific Plan Area, Carlsbad, CA Tank D 1124895 Recon 1976 Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Information for Lake Calavara Hills, Units I-IV 5 1125055 RMW Paleo Associates 1998 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance & Evaluation of the Hadley & Carnation Properties in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Tank D 1126094 Charles S. Bull 1976 Appendix E: An Archaeological Survey of Lake Calavera Hills 5 1127411 RMW Paleo Associates 2001 Excavation of Features on Site CA-SDI-6819 and Monitoring of Grading on the Hadley Property for Ryland Homes, Carlsbad, San Diego County, CA Tank D 1128739 WESTEC Services 1975 Excerpt from City of Carlsbad-EIR-295, Plaza Camino Real Expansion 5 1129240 Brian F. Mooney Associates 2003 A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Back Rail Project Tank D 1129361 Brian F. Byrd and Collin O’Neill 2002 Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5, San Diego County, CA 5 1129571 Monica Guerrero and Dennis R. Gallegos 2003 City of Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans Cultural Resource Background Study, City of Carlsbad, California 5 March 26, 2018 Page 4 of 7 NADB No. Authors Date Title Portions of Appended APE Addressed 1131144 Susan Hector 2007 Encina-Penasquitos Transmission Line Records Search Tank D 1132085 Russell Collett and Dayle Cheever 2001 Significance Assessment of Six Cultural Resources Sites within the College Boulevard 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 5,7 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES 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 Site Type Recorder Appended Expansion Segment Intersected Primary Number Trinomial Number Museum of Man No. P-37- CA-SDI- SDM-W- 5601 5601 1293 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP15. Habitation debris Cassiola and Graham 1977 7 6139 6139 1781 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP3. Ceramic scatter; AP15. Habitation debris Franklin and Thesken 1978; Romani and Hawthorne 1981; Morgan and Tennesen 2010 5, Potable Water Pipelines 6819 6819 1878 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP3. Ceramic scatter; AP15. Habitation debris Thesken 1978; Huey 1992 Tank D 10025/ 13124 10025 133 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP15. Habitation debris Hedges 1978; Prewitt, Allen, and Stahl 1967 5 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. March 26, 2018 Page 5 of 7 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 1981, and they suggested that the site was possibly an ethnohistoric village encountered by Portolá in 1769. In 2010, the site was revisited by Morgan and Tennesen of HDR 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 Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, 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 1978 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 pieces 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). March 26, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Potable Water Pipelines 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 4 in Confidential Attachment B). The pipelines would be installed parallel to the existing potable water pipelines, which would be abandoned in place. Site SDI-6139 was identified as intersecting the proposed appended potable water pipelines in the Flower Fields neighborhoods. The site is discussed above under Expansion Segment 5. While the site was determined to be not significant, virtually the entire Flower Fields improvements falls within SDI-6139. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS This investigation was conducted in compliance with CEQA Plus, which includes compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as CEQA. The appended project APE for the recycled water pipeline, the potable water pipelines, and the 1.5-MG storage tank intersects a total of four previously recorded archeological sites. The four sites intersected by this project are listed in Table 3. All cultural resources within the proposed appended Project APE were determined to be not significant or mitigated to less than significant impacts by prior studies. Therefore, the findings of this report conclude that there will be no adverse effects to historic properties from the appended portions of the project which remains consistent with the findings of the original 2014 report prepared by ASM. However, archaeological monitoring is recommended in all areas that intersect known archaeological sites and a 100-ft. buffer surrounding them. Table 3. Previously Recorded Sites and Potential Impacts within the Appended APE Designation Site Type Adverse Effects/Impacts Appended Expansion Segment Primary Number Trinomial Number Museum of Man No. P-37- CA-SDI- SDM-W- 5601 5601 1293 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP15. Habitation debris None, Not eligible/ Not significant 7 6139 6139 1781 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP3. Ceramic scatter; AP15. Habitation debris None, Not eligible/ Not significant 5, Potable Water Pipelines 6819 6819 1878 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP3. Ceramic scatter; AP15. Habitation debris None, Not eligible/ Not significant Tank D 10025/ 13124 10025 133 AP2. Lithic scatter; AP15. Habitation debris None, Not eligible/ Not significant 5 If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mark S. Becker, Ph.D., RPA Principal Investigator March 26, 2018 Page 7 of 7 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 ¼ mile of appended segments of ES 5 and ES 7, along with the Potable Water Pipelines. Figure 5. Archaeological sites within a ¼ mile of the updated location of Tank D. Attachment A Addendum: CMWD Class I Inventory ATTACHMENT A Project Maps Attachment A Addendum: CMWD Class I Inventory Figure 1. Regional project location map showing appended segments of ES 5, ES 7, Tank D, and Potable Water Pipelines. Attachment A Addendum: CMWD Class I Inventory 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. Attachment A Addendum: CMWD Class I Inventory Figure 3. The 1:24,000 scale project location map showing the updated location of Tank D.