HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-17; Municipal Water District; Resolution 1601RESOLUTION NO. 1601
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD (CMWD), APPROVING AN ADDENDUM
TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PACKAGE, AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD TO ADVERTISE AND
RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE RECYCLED WATER PHASE Ill PIPELINE EXPANSION
SEGMENT 5, PROJECT NO. 5208-B.
EXHIBIT 1
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Board of Directors of the City of
Carlsbad, California has determined it necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to install
approximately 1,400 linear feet of 8-inch diameter and 30,000 linear feet of 6-inch diameter polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) recycled water pipeline and 1,850 linear feet of 8-inch diameter and 4,100 linear feet of
6-inch PVC potable water pipeline; and
WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, equipment,
transportation, and other expenses necessary or incidental for the Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline
Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, have been prepared and are on file at CMWD and are
incorporated by reference herein; and
WHEREAS, an environmental impact assessment was conducted for the Phase Ill Recycled
Water Program, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program was approved by the Board through Resolution No. 1455, on Nov. 27, 2012;
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the MND and Supplemental Environmental Package including a
supplement to the federal cross cutter evaluation form was prepared to document the changes to the
project scope and it was determined that none of the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have been triggered, and all applicable mitigation
measures contained in the environmental documents have been incorporated into the construction
documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CMWD Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supplemental
Environmental Package is hereby approved and attached hereto as Attachment A.
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 5 of 223
3. That the plans, specifications and contract documents for the Recycled Water Phase Ill
Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, on file at CMWD are hereby approved.
4. That the secretary to the Board is hereby authorized and directed to publish, in accordance
with State law, a Notice to Contractors Inviting Bids for the construction of the Recycled Water Phase
Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, in accordance with the plans, specifications, and
contract documents referred herein.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District of the City of Carlsbad on the 17th day of J.!!!y, 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
M. Hall, K. Blackburn, M. Schumacher, C. Schumacher, M. Packard.
None.
None.
M~
(SEAL)
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 6 of 223
ADDENDUM TO THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT
FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012
State Clearinghouse No. 2012091049
Prepared for:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
March 30, 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 8 of 223
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1. Introduction/Project Background ......................................................................................................... 1
2. Project Description and Location .......................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Purpose of the Addendum .................................................................................................................... 2
4. Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 4
Agriculture/Forestry Resources ................................................................................................................ 6
Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 8
Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 11
Geology/Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 14
Hazards & Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................................. 15
Hydrology/Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 17
Land Use/Planning .................................................................................................................................. 18
Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................................. 20
Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Population and Housing ..................................... : .................................................................................... 22
Public Services .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................................................ 23
Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................................. 24
Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................................ 25
5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 26
6. References .......................................................................................................................................... 27
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 9 of 223
1. Introduction/Project Background
This document is an Addendum to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted
IS/MND) for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Approved
Project; EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012, SCH No. 2012091049; CMWD 2012a). The project
evaluated potential impacts associated with implementation of Phase Ill of CMWD's 2012 Recycled
Water Master Plan (RWMP). The Adopted IS/MND tiered from the Program EIR {12-01) for the 2012 City
of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master
Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR 12-01; SCH No. 2012021006;
CMWD 2012b). Phase Ill proposed expanding the treatment capacity within the Carlsbad Water
Recycling Facility (CWRF) by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. In addition,
Phase Ill proposed the installation of 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocation or construction of a new
storage tank, conversion of existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofits of
landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations
throughout the project area. The Approved Project was adopted by the CMWD Board of Directors on
November 27, 2012 (CMWD Agenda Bill 760, Resolution No. 1433). The Program EIR (12-01) and
Adopted IS/MND (EIA 12-02), including supporting documents, are hereby incorporated by reference.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that potentially significant environmental impacts could occur to
biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials; however, with the implementation of the
Project's mitigation measures impacts would be less than significant.
In 2013, subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND, the CMWD prepared an Evaluation Form for
Environmental Review and Federal Coordination as part ofthe State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) CEQA-Plus requirements and CMWD's Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (SRF
Program) application (CMWD 2013). The evaluation form concluded that the Approved Project would
not result in adverse effects associated with compliance with federal regulations.
2. Project Description and Location
The CMWD is currently proposing modifications (proposed modifications) to the Approved Project,
which is the subject of this Addendum. The proposed modifications include:
• Two extensions would be added to the Segment 5 pipelines; one extension would extend the
pipeline northeast on Tamarack Avenue; the other extension would branch off the Marron Road
pipeline north on Monroe Street (see Figure 1, Pipeline Improvements).
• An extension to the Segment 7 pipeline would be added on Tamarack Avenue that would
connect a gap in the previously proposed Segment 7 pipelines (see Figure 1).
• New potable water pipelines, ranging in size from 6-inches to 8-inches in diameter, would be
installed in the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (see Figure 1; hereafter
referred to as Palisades potable water pipelines and Flower Fields potable water pipelines). The
pipelines would be installed parallel to the existing potable water pipelines, which would be
abandoned in place.
• The LS-million gallon (MG) storage tank is proposed to be located on the vacant, pre-graded
pad southeast of the existing 8.5 MG storage tank on the D Tank site, near Black Rail Road (see
Figure 2, Storage Tank Relocation). The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
1 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 11 of 223
adjacent to the site. This location is approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed tank
location. The proposed storage tank would have security lighting.
The proposed modifications would comply with applicable mitigation measures included in the Adopted
IS/MND (Attachment A), as well as the regulatory compliance and project design and construction
features included in the Adopted IS/MND (Appendix A of Attachment A). In addition, the proposed
modifications would implement a construction best management practice (BMP) to provide
archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas of the proposed modifications that intersect
with known cultural sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them.
Environmental Setting
The surrounding land uses for the extension to Segment 5 along Tamarack Avenue are single-family
residences to the east and a Boat/RV storage facility to the west. The alignment is at an elevation of
approximately 235 to 268 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
The extension to Segment 5 on Monroe Street is surrounded on both sides by commercial development,
with the North County Plaza to the west and The Shoppes at Carlsbad to the east. Buena Vista Creek is
located approximately 50 feet north of the northern end of the pipeline. The alignment is at an elevation
of approximately 21 to 23 feet AMSL.
The Tamarack Avenue extension for Segment 7 has single-family residences and open space adjacent on
both sides of the pipeline. The alignment is at an elevation ranging from approximately 179 to
203 feet AMSL.
The Palisades potable water pipelines are located within internal roadways for single-family residences.
The area is surrounded by single-family residences. The neighborhood is bisected by Tamarack Avenue
and adjacent to part of the existing Segment 5 alignment. The elevation of the pipeline alignment would
range from 100 feet to 150 feet AMSL.
The Flower Fields potable water pipelines are located within internal roadways for multi-family
residences. Open space is located to north and east and multi-family residences are located to the south
and west. The area is surrounded by single-family residences. The neighborhood is adjacent to part of
the existing Segment 5 alignment. The elevation of the pipeline alignment would range from 100 feet to
120 feet AMSL.
The surrounding land uses for the storage tank include single-family residences to the east and south,
other existing CMWD potable and recycled water storage reservoirs to the west, and a church to the
north. The site is at an elevation of approximately 375 feet AMSL.
3. Purpose of the Addendum
As outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an Addendum to a previously certified MND may be
prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described
in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred. The CMWD has
determined that an Addendum to the Adopted IS/MND is the appropriate level of environmental review
under CEQA for the proposed modifications.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
2 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 12 of 223
Under CEQA, an Addendum to a previously adopted IS/MND may be prepared by either a lead or
responsible agency if the conditions described above are satisfied. As a result, once an IS/MND has been
certified, a subsequent or supplemental MND may only be prepared if one of the following conditions
has been met (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)):
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous MND was adopted,
shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
MND;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous MND;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those in the
previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
This Addendum has been prepared by the CMWD because the construction and operation of the
proposed modifications is consistent with the overall project evaluated in the Adopted IS/MND and does
not require major revisions to the Adopted IS/MND due to new significant impacts or substantial
increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The anticipated environmental
impacts of the proposed modifications, as explained in detail in the following analysis, have been
analyzed and mitigated accordingly in the Adopted IS/MND, and there have been no new circumstances
since that time that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. As evaluated
in the supporting analysis of this Addendum, mitigation measures that were previously identified in the
Adopted IS/MND would continue to ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can
be included in or attached to the Adopted 15/MND. Prior to its consideration of the proposed
modifications, the CMWD will review and consider this Addendum together with the Adopted 15/MND
when making a decision regarding the proposed modifications.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
3 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 15 of 223
4. Environmental Analysis
Documents containing the environmental analysis supporting the CMWD's action in approving the
proposed modifications include the Adopted IS/MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), as well as updated Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2018; Attachment B) and the Cultural
Resources Addendum Report (ASM 2018; Attachment C).
This Addendum analyzes all 18 environmental issue areas that were included in the Adopted IS/MND,
plus Tribal Cultural Resources, and discusses whether the proposed modifications described above
would trigger significance criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163, in each of
these areas.
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture/Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Land Use/Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings
For each environmental issue area, this Addendum provides a comparative analysis ofthe impacts
presented in the Adopted IS/MND. The analysis includes a determination regarding the occurrence of
new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Finally, an analysis
is presented to determine whether there are any changed circumstances or new information relative to
the proposed modifications. For each environmental issue area, the following is provided to conduct this
comparative analysis:
1. Previous Analysis
2. Analysis of the Revised Project
3. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications
are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
4. Conclusion
The following environmental analysis supports the CMWD's determination that approval and
implementation of the proposed modifications would not result in new significant environmental
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts covered under the
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
4 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 16 of 223
Adopted 15/MND and related MMRP. This environmental analysis is subject to all applicable mitigation
measures outlined in the Adopted 15/MND and MMRP.
The following presents the environmental analysis of impacts associated with the proposed
modifications. In instances where the impacts resulting from several proposed modification components
would be similar, their corresponding analyses have been grouped together. In instances where impacts
differ by proposed modification component, they are discussed separately.
Aesthetics
Previous Analysis
Analysis of aesthetic impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 1,
pages 15-22 through 15-23. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that expansion and relocation ofthe storage
tank site would not result in temporary construction impacts because it would be isolated from public
view. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that aesthetic impacts from construction activities for the
expansion segments would be a substantial adverse change in existing visual character. In the Adopted
15/MND, the CMWD committed to the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted
15/MND (Attachment A) to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding neighborhoods,
which includes removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing setting, and restoring
disturbed areas following construction. With implementation of these measures, construction visual
impacts would be less than significant.
No operational visual impacts were determined to occur as the pipelines would be below ground. The
storage tank would be painted with low-glare coatings so that reflection is kept to a minimum. No new
lighting or glare sources were proposed. Further, the tank would be located within an existing facility
that contains two 1.5-MG tanks and an 8.5-MG tank (the D-tank site), therefore it would be consistent
with the character of the site.
Analysis of the Revised Project
Pipeline Improvements
The pipeline improvements would result in similar impacts to the expansion segments analyzed in the
Adopted 15/MND. As the pipelines will be installed below-ground, no visual impacts would occur after
construction.
Similar to the Adopted 15/MND, aesthetic impacts from construction activities for the pipeline
improvements would result in a substantial adverse change in existing visual character. The proposed
modifications would implement the construction features listed in Appendix A ofthe Adopted 15/MND
to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding neighborhoods. With implementation of
these measures, impacts would be less than significant from construction of the pipeline improvements.
Storage Tank Site Relocation
The storage tank would be located within a graded pad directly southeast ofthe existing 8.5-MG steel
tank, approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed site. The currently proposed location is in
an area more visible to public view from Poinsettia Lane and Fisherman Drive than the location analyzed
in the Adopted 15/MND and would likely maintain a similar visibility from New Crest Court and Black Rail
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
5 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 17 of 223
Road as the previous location. However, the tank would be located next to multiple storage tanks of
similar or larger bulk and scale that are currently visible from the surrounding roadways. Therefore, the
relocated storage tank would be consistent with the existing visual character and quality of the area,
and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, construction activities may be more visible to
viewers from Poinsettia lane than the location analyzed in the Adopted 15/MND. As with the pipeline
extensions in the Adopted IS/MND, the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted
15/MND would be implemented to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding
neighborhoods, which includes removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing
setting, and restoring disturbed areas following construction. Security lighting would also be provided;
to minimize lighting impacts, the lighting would be shielded down and would not spill into the adjacent
residential properties. With implementation of these measures, construction visual impacts from the
storage tank would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to visual or aesthetic resources. No substantial changes in the aesthetic or visual environment
have occurred since adoption of the 15/MND, and no substantial new sensitive receptors or scenic
resources have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed modifications.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in previously
identified aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Implementation of
construction features identified in the Adopted IS/MND would ensure that temporary and permanent
visual impacts would remain less than significant. Therefore, the impacts to aesthetic resources and the
proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163.
Agriculture/Forestry Resources
Previous Analysis
Analysis of agriculture/forestry resources impacts are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 2,
pages IS-23 through IS-24. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that pipeline expansion and relocation of the
storage tank would not result in impacts to agricultural or forestry resources, as the expansion and
storage tank would not be located in agricultural or forest land areas and would not convert existing
agricultural or forest land areas to different uses.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not be located
in agricultural or forest land areas and would have no impact to those resources.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
6 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 18 of 223
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to agriculture or forestry resources. No substantial changes to these resources have occurred
since adoption of the 15/MND, and no substantial new agricultural or forestry r~sources have been
identified within the vicinity of the proposed modifications.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant agriculture or forestry resources impacts or a substantial
increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
Therefore, the impacts to agriculture and forestry resources from the proposed modifications do not
meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15162 and 15163.
Air Quality
Previous Analysis
Analysis of air quality impacts ofthe Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 3,
pages 15-25 through 15-28. These sections outline how the Approved Project may impact existing and
future air quality conditions.
For the criteria pollutant emissions analysis, the Adopted 15/MND relied on the emission calculations
within the Program EIR, which included the Phase Ill components. Modeling for criteria pollutant
emissions within the Program EIR (12-01) included a conservative scenario where 12 sewer pipelines,
13 potable water pipelines, 1 tank, 1 pump station, the CWRF, and 70,850 feet of recycled water
pipelines would be constructed in one year.
The Approved Project would implement the construction features for minimizing criteria pollutant
emissions, as described in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND. With implementation of these
construction features, the Adopted 15/MND determined that the Approved Project was consistent with
applicable air quality plans, and the modeled Approved Project emissions would not exceed local
significance thresholds. Therefore, the Adopted 15/MND concluded that impacts to air quality as a result
of construction and operation ofthe Approved Project were less than significant.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Construction of the storage tank would result in the same emissions, as the tank would be the same size
as proposed in the Adopted 15/MND. In addition, operation of the storage tank would not require
equipment that would generate criteria air pollutants, as with the tank proposed in the Adopted
15/MND.
Construction of the proposed pipeline improvements would result in temporary increases in criteria
pollutant emissions associated with soil disturbance, dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from
on-site construction equipment, as well as from personal vehicles, vendor/delivery trucks, and off-site
trucks hauling soil and aggregate material. However, the project would implement the construction
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
7 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 19 of 223
features for air quality, as listed in Appendix A ofthe Adopted 15/MND, and the maximum daily
construction emissions resulting from the proposed modifications would not exceed the adopted San
Diego Air Pollution Control District significance thresholds and would not increase the construction
related criteria pollutant emissions from what was previously evaluated in the Adopted 15/MND. In
addition, the underground pipelines would not require regular maintenance and operation would not
generate criteria air pollutants. Therefore, similar to the findings of the Adopted 15/MND, the
construction-related criteria air pollution emissions from the proposed modifications would be
temporary and would not be expected to have a significant impact on ambient air quality.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes wit h respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to air quality. No substantial changes to air quality circumstances have occurred since adoption
of the 15/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant air quality impacts or a substantial increase in previously
identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to air
quality from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental
MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163.
Biological Resources
Previous Analysis
Analysis of biological resources impacts and identified mitigation measures of the Approved Project are
contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 4, pages 15-28 through 15-35. A focused biological resources
study was also prepared in 2013 by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX), after adoption of the
15/MND, to provide specific biological resources information pertaining to federal requirements in
fulfilling SWRCB CEQA-Plus requirements for the CMWD's SRF Program application.
As discussed in the Adopted 15/MND, the Approved Project components have been designed to be
restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility right-of-way (ROW) areas,
access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential,
and other mixed-use developments. The Adopted 15/MND determined that the areas being considered
for construction of Approved Project components do not support high quality biological resources, and
the Approved Project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive biological resources, including
those resources protected under federal policy. However, several of the Approved Project components
were determined to occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat
that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, and
potential indirect impacts to these resources (e.g., construction noise and vibration, run off, and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel) were determined to occur during
construction. These would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures Bio-lA
through Bio-lF for special-status wildlife species impacts and Bio-18 through Bio-lF for sensitive natural
communities and wetlands impacts.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
8 _March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 20 of 223
As discussed in the focused biological resources study, and similar to the Adopted IS/MND findings, for
federal conformance the Approved Project components were determined to result in indirect impacts to
federally-listed species. These impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through Adopted
IS/MND mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF. Construction ofthe Approved Project components
was determined to potentially result in impacts to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
from removal of trimming of trees and shrubs during the breeding season; this impact would be
mitigated through mitigation measure Bio-lA. In addition, with conformance with the BMPs described in
the focused biological resources study for runoff and water quality, the Approved Project was
determined to be consistent with the Clean Water Act. The study also concluded that the Approved
Project components would be in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
An Addendum Report to the focused biological resources study and Adopted IS/MND biological analysis
was prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (Biological Resources Addendum Report; HELIX,
dated February 21, 2018; Attachment B) to analyze the biological resource impacts of the proposed
modifications. The analysis from the Biological Resources Addendum Report is incorporated below.
Pipeline Improvements
Similar to the Phase Ill sites analyzed in the Approved Project's IS/MND, the proposed modifications
occur entirely within existing development or in developed roads surrounded by existing transportation,
residential, and other mixed-use developments. No direct impacts would occur to state-and federally-
listed species. However, undeveloped land occurs to the north of the new section of Segment 5 on
Monroe Street, west of Segment 5 on Tamarack Avenue (coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland), and
west of Segment 7, northeast of Segment 5, on Tamarack Avenue. The potable water pipelines occur
adjacent to ornamental landscaped vegetation. Similar to the Approved Project components, in these
areas the pipeline improvements may result in potentially significant indirect impacts to native habitat
that could support special-status wildlife species through construction noise and vibration and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel. With implementation of mitigation
measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, impacts to special-status wildlife species from the pipeline
improvements would be less than significant.
Wetland habitats associated with Buena Vista Creek are present to the north of the new section of
Segment 5 on Monroe Street. Coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland is present west of the new
section of Segment 5 on Tamarack Avenue. Construction activities associated with project modifications
in Segment 5 could result in potential runoff and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and
personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect
impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would be considered significant.
Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities
adjacent to undeveloped areas for Segment 5 would be controlled and reduced to less than significant
levels through compliance with the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the Adopted IS/MND
and compliance with applicable regulations, including through implementation of a project-specific
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-
18, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and
personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and wetlands and mitigate this impact to a less than significant
level.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
9 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 21 of 223
The Segment 7 extension arid the potable water pipelines would not be located near sensitive natural
communities or wetlands.
Storage Tank Site Relocation
The storage tank would be constructed on a graded development pad. The site is characterized by
sparse, primarily non-native (weedy) and ornamental vegetation. Some large trees, including eucalyptus,
are present within the facility. Construction noise and vibration may occur at the storage tank site that
may indirectly impact nesting birds and raptors. Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through
Bio-lF would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant.
As the project is located adjacent to landscaped and/or developed areas, it would not significantly
impact sensitive natural communities. Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development
pad for the storage tank. Cracked soils and three plant species that typically occupy ponded areas were
observed, none of which is considered an indicator species for vernal pools. The bodies of seed shrimp
also were noted in this area. Compaction of the pad and a small earthen berm around the edge of this
pad are likely responsible for the observed ponding. Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this
area would not be considered federally jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development
pad, the absence of vernal pool indicators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential
for any listed species, this feature is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter-
Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the city.
The storage tank would have security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill
over into sensitive biological areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be
less than significant.
The graded pad has a small berm at the downslope edge to restrict water runoff. Potential indirect
effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may occur if runoff from construction work
areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that discharge into .
downstream wetland areas. Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated
from construction activities for the storage tank would be controlled and reduced to less than significant
levels through compliance with the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the Adopted IS/MND
and compliance with applicable regulations, including through implementation of a project-specific
SWPPP. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-lB, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF would
prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats
and wetlands and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
Conclusion
The Biological Resources Addendum Report identified the pipeline improvements and storage tank as
having potentially significant biological resource impacts, whereas the Adopted IS/MND did not find
potentially significant impacts for the storage tank site or Segment 7. However, these impacts would be
mitigated to less than significant with mitigation measures previously identified in the Adopted IS/MND.
Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed
modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding
biological resources which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was
adopted and the focused biological resources study was prepared. Therefore, the biological resource
impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental
MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
10 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 22 of 223
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
Previous Analysis
Analysis of cultural resources impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND,
Section 5, pages IS-36 through IS-37. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that due to the high cultural
resource sensitivity in the Approved Project area, unknown cultural resources may be uncovered during
ground disturbing construction activities. The Adopted IS/MND determined that with implementation of
the cultural resources procedures, including the regulatory compliance and project construction
features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, cultural resource impacts would be less than
significant.
A Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared in 2014 by ASM Affiliates Inc. (ASM), after adoption of
the IS/MND, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the
CEQA Plus analysis. The inventory determined that although four previously recorded cultural sites were
found within a 0.25-mile radius of ES 7, only one archaeological site is within the pipeline alignment.
Additionally, although there were four recorded locations near the proposed location of the storage
tank, the site had previously been graded and no additional ground disturbance was anticipated. No
monitoring was recommended provided that the ground was not disturbed. However, the cultural
resource inventory determined that there was a possibility of encountering cultural materials during the
trenching for portions of Segment 5, as 18 prerecorded sites were found within 0.25-mile of the pipeline
alignment, and two archaeological sites are within the pipeline alignment. Therefore, an archaeological
monitoring program was recommended during the trenching for portions of Segment 5 and 7, along
with a treatment plan in the event of any unanticipated archaeological discoveries. The overall findings
of the report concluded that there would be no adverse effects to historic properties.
According to the Adopted IS/MND, Approved Project components, such as Segment 5 and 7, would be in
areas of high paleontological sensitivity (Santiago formation). However, since Approved Project
components would occur within existing roadway ROW that has already been disturbed, additional
impacts from the Approved Project would not occur. Impacts to paleontological resources would be less
than significant.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that impacts from disturbance of human remains during construction
would be less than significant with conformance of the required protocols under Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 5097.97 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
An Addendum Report to the Class I cultural resource inventory, dated March 26, 2018, was prepared by
ASM (Attachment C) to analyze the cultural resource sensitivity ofthe proposed modifications. The
records search for the inventory found four previously recorded sites in the project area for the
proposed modifications (one site intersecting the Segment 5 extension [SDl-10025]; one site intersecting
both the Segment 5 extension and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines [SDl-6139]; one site
intersecting the storage tank [SDl-6819]; and one site intersecting the Segment 7 extension [SDl-5601]).
The Addendum Report determined that cultural resources within SDl-6139 (Segment 5 and Flower Fields
potable water pipelines) were no longer identified as significant in recent surveys due to absence of site
integrity and limited artifact density and diversity. In a recent survey, SDl-10025 (Segment 5) was
determined to be severely impacted and would not have significant cultural resources. SDl-5601
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
11 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 23 of 223
(Segment 7} has previously undergone a testing and data recovery program due to residential
development in the area, and a recent survey determined the rest of the site to not have significant
cultural resources. SDl-6819, located near the storage tank site, had undergone artifact recovery prior to
construction ofthe existing tanks and pads on site. This site was recently tested and determined to not
contain significant cultural resources. In addition, the proposed modifications would implement the
cultural resource procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, which includes retaining a qualified
archaeologist and Native American monitor if subsurface cultural resources are encountered or if
evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered. Further, the
proposed modifications would provide archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas that
intersect with known archaeological sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them. Therefore, there
would be less than significant impacts to cultural resources from the proposed modifications.
Parts of Segment 5 and Segment 7 were identified as being within a high paleontological sensitivity area;
therefore, the Segment 5 and Segment 7 extensions may be in these areas. However, as with the
Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would occur within existing roadway ROW
that has already been disturbed, and significant impacts from the proposed modifications would not
occur.
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would implement the required protocols
under Public Resources Code (PRC} Section 5097.97 and California State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 if human remains are encountered; therefore, impacts to human remains would be less
than significant.
The IS/MND was adopted prior to passage of Assembly Bill (AB} 52, which requires analysis and outreach
for tribal cultural resources as part of environmental review in compliance with CEQA. The 2014 cultural
resource inventory conducted tribal outreach to determine if cultural resources of cultural concern were
located in the area; no responses were received. In addition, through the implementation of the cultural
resource procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND described above, monitoring would be
required in areas that intersect with known archaeological sites that may contain tribal cultural
resources.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project is Undertaken/New
Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in cultural or paleontological resource conditions within the
area of the proposed modifications since the time of adoption of the IS/MND and the Class I cultural
resource inventory was prepared. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding
cultural or paleontological resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and
no new information of substantial importance relative to cultural or paleontological resources have
been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to cultural resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes
to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new '
information of substantial importance regarding cultural resources which was not known and could not
have been known when the IS/MND was adopted and the Class I cultural resource inventory was
prepared. Therefore, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources as a result ofthe proposed
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
12 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 24 of 223
modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Geology/Soils
Previous Analysis
Analysis of geology/soils impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section
6, pages IS-38 through IS-40.
The Adopted IS/MND found that although the Approved Project components would be located in a
seismically active area, that through implementing the relevant requirements of the California Building
Code and the California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, impacts related to
ground shaking would be less than significant.
The Adopted IS/MND determined that Segment 5 and 7 were located in areas of high landslide risk, or
areas that may have unstable soil. With implementation of a site-specific geotechnical investigation, as
described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, landslide and unstable soil impacts were concluded to
be less than significant.
Earth disturbing activities from the storage tank construction would not result in the exposure of soils.
Through compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Append ix A of the Adopted IS/MND,
including the General Linear Utility Permit and/or local development standards and preparation of a
SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, erosion impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would be located in a
seismically active area. As with the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would also implement
the relevant requirements of the California Building Code and the California Department of Mines and
Geology's Special Publications 117. Therefore, ground shaking impacts would be less than significant.
' The Segment 5 extension, on Monroe Street, would be located in an area of unstable soil (potential for
liquefaction), according to Figure 3.5-3 of the City General Plan EIR, dated June 2015-(SCH
#2011011004). The remaining Segment 5 extensions, the Segment 7 extension, the potable water
pipelines, and the storage tank would not be located in these areas. Each proposed modification would
perform a site-specific geotechnical investigation, as described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND,
that would identify geologic and soil hazards and provide typical measures to accommodate the
hazards. With implementation of the geotechnical investigations, impacts from geologic and soil hazards
would be less than significant.
As the storage tank would be constructed in a previously graded pad, earth-disturbing activities may
result in exposure of soils to erosion. In addition, the pipeline improvements may result in exposure of
soils to erosion. Similar to the Approved Project components, compliance with the applicable
regulations listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, including the General Linear Utility Permit
and/or local development standards and preparation of a SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable
BMPs, erosion impacts from the proposed modifications would be less than significant.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project.
Addendum
13 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 25 of 223
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in geology and soil conditions within the area of the proposed
modifications since the time of adoption of the 15/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance regarding known geological and soil hazards, conditions, or resources has become available.
Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to
geology and soil resources have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to geology and soils within the Adopted 15/MND. Additionally,
there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would
be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding geological resources which
was not known and could not have been known when the 15/MND was adopted. Therefore, the geology
and soils impacts from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Previous Analysis
Analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the
Adopted 15/MND, Section 7, pages 15-40 through 15-41.
For the GHG emissions analysis, the Adopted 15/MND relied on the GHG emission calculations within the
Master Plans Program EIR (CMWD, EIR 12-01, 2012b), which included the Phase Ill components.
Modeling for GHG emissions within the Program EIR included a conservative scenario where 12 sewer
pipelines, 13 potable water pipelines, 1 tank, 1 pump station, the CWRF, and 70,850 feet of recycled
water pipelines would be constructed in one year. Construction emissions totaled 959 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MT C02e) per year. This value did not exceed the 2,500 MT C02e threshold.
Since the Approved Project would construct fewer components than were analyzed in the Program EIR,
it was assumed that GHG emissions associated with construction would be less, and would not exceed
the GHG threshold. Pipelines and storage tanks would not require fuel or energy once constructed and
therefore would not emit GHGs. Operational emissions were primarily associated with the CWRF facility
and were less than significant. In addition, as the Approved Project would not exceed the GHG
threshold, the Approved Project was determined to be consistent with applicable GHG plans, policies,
and regulations.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Construction of the storage tank was accounted for in the GHG emissions modeling scenario reported in
the Adopted 15/MND and would not change due to the relocation of the tank.
The new pipeline extensions would add additional pipelines to be constructed that would increase the
overall GHG emissions of the Approved Project. However, the additional length associated with the
extensions, which is approximately 7,800 feet, would be well below the total amount of construction for
recycled water pipelines that was assumed in the modeled scenario in the Program EIR. The estimated
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
14 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 26 of 223
GHG emissions under the conservative scenario were well below the 2,500 MT C02e threshold.
Therefore, the proposed modifications' GHG emissions would be expected to have a minor effect on the
Approved Project's GHG emissions and would not cause the emissions to exceed the threshold analyzed
in the Adopted 15/MND. Therefore, GHG emissions from the proposed modifications would be less than
significant. As the proposed modifications' GHG emissions would not exceed the GHG threshold, the
modifications would also be consistent with applicable GHG plans, policies, and regulations.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in GHG emissions conditions for the proposed modifications
since the time of adoption of the 15/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance
regarding GHG emissions has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new
information of substantial importance relative to GHG emissions have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to GHG emissions. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to
the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new
information of substantial importance regarding GHG emissions that was not known and could not have
been known when the 15/MND was adopted. Therefore, the GHG emissions impacts and the proposed
modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Previous Analysis
Analysis of hazards and hazardous materials impacts and Adopted 15/MND-identified mitigation
measures ofthe Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND, Section 8, pages 15-42 through
15-46.
The Adopted 15/MND concluded that Approved Project component impacts from the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from the release of hazardous materials into the environment
through accident conditions, would be less than significant.
The Adopted 15/MND (Section 8.d) identified approximately 50 recorded hazardous waste sites along all
Phase Ill pipeline alignments, except for Segment 7. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that Segment 7 and
the storage tank would not result in a significant impa£t related to listed hazardous material sites.
However, Segment 5 was determined to have the potential to encounter contaminated soil, and impacts
were potentially significant. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated through Adopted
15/MND mitigation measures Haz-1 (excavation monitoring) and Haz-2 (construction worker health and
safety work plan).
The Adopted 15/MND concluded that temporary roadway closures from development of the Approved
Project components in the roadway ROW could potentially interfere with emergency plans and
procedures. With implementation of the construction measures in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND,
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
15 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 27 of 223
including a traffic control plan, impacts from temporary roadway closures to emergency replace or
evacuation plans would be less than significant.
\
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
The proposed modifications would comply with applicable hazardous materials regulations, as described
in Section 8a of the Adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in a
potentially significant hazard from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from a
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment.
As described in the Adopted IS/MND, Segment 7 and the storage tank are not located on a site listed in a
hazardous materials site database, and no significant impacts would occur from disturbing such a site for
these modifications. However, as Segment 5 was identified as having the potential to encounter
contaminated soil during construction activities, the Segment 5 extensions and the potable water
pipelines (which are adjacent to Segment 5) are determined to have potentially significant impacts.
These potentially significant impacts would be mitigated through Adopted IS/MND mitigation measures
Haz-1 (excavation monitoring) and Haz-2 (construction worker health and safety work plan).
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications, if constructed within the
roadway ROW, could potentially interfere with emergency plans and procedures. With implementation
of the construction measures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, including implementation of a
traffic control plan, impacts from temporary roadway closures from the proposed modifications to
emergency replace or evacuation plans would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in hazards or hazardous materials conditions within the area of
the proposed modifications since the adoption ofthe IS/MND. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance regarding hazards or hazardous materials has become available. Therefore, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to hazards or
hazardous materials have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Additionally, there are no
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding hazards and hazardous
materials that was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted.
Therefore, the hazards and hazardous materials impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet
the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
Sections 15162 and 15163.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
16 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 28 of 223
Hydrology/Water Quality
Previous Analysis
Analysis of hydrology/water quality. impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted
15/MND, Section 9, pages 15-47 through 15-51.
The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the storage tank would be a passive facility on an existing storage
tank site and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters, nor result in significant water quality
impacts during and after construction, as no ground-disturbing activities would be required and
potential pollutants would be contained within the existing drainage system of the site.
The Adopted 15/MND determined that construction of Segments 5 and 7 would have the potential to
contribute to a violation of water quality standards, the degradation of water quality, or increased
erosion or flooding. However, through conformance with the Storm Water General Permit/General
Linear Utility Permit, in addition to requirements established by the Cities of Carlsbad (Carlsbad Storm
Water Standards Manual) and Oceanside (Oceanside Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance), where
applicable, these impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with these measures includes
implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs. These measures are further described in Appendix A
of the Adopted 15/MND.
If dewatering is required for an Approved Project component, dewatering and discharge activities would
be subject to water quality guidelines outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) administered by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the
measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential water quality impacts include a spill contingency
plan and requirements for groundwater disposal if encountered.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications could result in short-term
construction-related water quality, erosion, and flooding impacts that would be minimized through
implementation of the features described in Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND. In addition, if
dewatering is required for the proposed modifications, the modifications wou Id comply with the N PDES
guidelines. With implementation of these features, impacts from hydrology and water quality from the
proposed modifications would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in hydrqlogy or water quality conditions within the area of the
proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the 15/MND. Additionally, no new information
of substantial importance regarding hydrology or water quality has become available. Therefore, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to hydrology or
water quality have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, there are no
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
17 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 29 of 223
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding hydrology and water quality
which was not known and could not have been known when the 15/MND was certified. Therefore, the
hydrology and water quality impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Land Use/Planning
Previous Analysis
Analysis of land use and planning impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted
15/MND, Section 10, pages 15-51 through 15-52.
The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the Approved Project, whose components are located as
underground facilities or improvements on CMWD property containing existing facilities, would not
physically divide an established community.
The Approved Project determined that construction would result in potential incompatibilities with
surrounding land uses only if it would require roadway closures; however, the proposed modifications
will not result in any roadway closures. With the implementation of a traffic control plan (as described in
construction measures Appendix A of the Adopted 15/MND) this conflict would be less than significant.
The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in temporary increases in noise
levels from the operation of construction equipment; however, noise levels would comply with
applicable noise ordinances and the CMWD would implement BMPs to minimize noise.
The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the Approved Project was consistent with the city's General Plan,
as the Approved Project would implement the recycled water infrastructure necessary to meet the land
use goals established in the city's General Plan.
The Adopted 15/MND stated that all projects located within the Coastal Zone will require review for
consistency with the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and California Coastal Act prior to issuance
of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The storage tank would be located within the Coastal Zone;
however, the Adopted 15/MND did not state this. As concluded by the Adopted 15/MND, the required
review and issuance of CDPs would ensure that infrastructure projects would be consistent with the
Local Coastal Program; individual components would require this review on a project-by-project basis.
With this review, impacts to the Coastal Zone were concluded to be less than significant.
Several components of the Approved Project were determined to result in potential impacts to sensitive
species and habitat that are addressed within the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the City of Carlsbad Planning Division
were required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the project
description to be consistent with the conditions ofthe City of Carlsbad HMP. In addition, the projects
were required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described
in the City of Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely affected by the project.
Therefore, implementation of the Approved Project components was determined to not conflict with
the adopted City of Carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
18 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 30 of 223
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
The proposed modifications would result in similar land use conflicts from roadway closures and
construction noise as the Approved Project. With implementation of a traffic control plan, where
applicable, and the construction BMPs described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, impacts from
these conflicts would be less than significant.
The proposed modifications would further implement the recycled water infrastructure necessary to
meet the land use goals established in the city's General Plan, and therefore the modifications would be
consistent with the city's General Plan.
The Segment 5 and 7 extensions and the Flower Fields pipelines would not be located in the Coastal
Zone. The storage tank and the Palisades potable water pipelines would be located within the Coastal
Zone. As with other Approved Project components, the proposed modifications in the Coastal Zone
would require review for consistency with the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and California
Coastal Act prior to issuance of a CDP. With this review, impacts to the Coastal Zone would be less than
significant.
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications were determined to result in
potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the City of Carlsbad HMP.
Proposed modifications requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the Carlsbad Planning
Division would be required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the
project description to be consistent with the conditions of the City of Carlsbad HMP. In addition, the
proposed modifications would be required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and
mitigation measures described in the Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely
affected by the project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed modifications would not conflict
with the adopted City of Carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in land use and planning policies or requirements within the
area of the proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance regarding land use has become available. Therefore, no changes
in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to land use have been
identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to land use and planning. Additionally, there are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance regarding land use and planning which was not known and
could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the land use and planning
impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental
MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
19 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 31 of 223
Mineral Resources
Previous Analysis
Analysis of mineral resources impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND,
Section 11, pages IS-52 through IS-53.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the components would not result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource or locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on an applicable
plan.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not be located
in areas known to have mineral resources or areas delineated as a mineral resource site, and no impacts
to mineral resources would occur.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to mineral resources. No substantial changes to these resources have occurred since adoption of
the IS/MND, and no substantial new mineral resources have been identified within the vicinity of the
proposed modifications.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no neV<.'. significant mineral resources impacts or a substantial increase in previously
identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to
mineral resources from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163.
Noise
Previous Analysis
An analysis of noise impacts for the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 12,
pages IS-53 through IS-56.
As described in the Adopted IS/MND, the CMWD committed to the measures list in Appendix A during
construction of the Approved Project to minimize noise effects to surrounding neighborhoods, including
distancing noise sources from residences, compliance with applicable noise ordinances, and providing
notice of construction to residents and property owners.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that operation ofthe pipeline projects and storage tank would be
passive and would not result in permanent increases in the ambient noise environment.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
20 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 32 of 223
No pile driving or blasting would occur with the Approved Project. Vibration impacts from project
construction on Segment 5 were identified by the Adopted IS/MND as having the potential to impact
nearby structures and vibration-sensitive equipment and operations at commercial and industrial land
uses. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that residential development would not include vibration
sensitive equipment that would be impacted by construction vibration. As listed in Appendix A of the
Adopted IS/MND, project construction would provide advanced notice of construction, between two
and four weeks prior to construction, to residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignments.
The announcement will state specifically where and when construction will occur in the area. With this
adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration, impacts from construction vibration were
concluded to be less than significant.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would implement the
construction features described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND. With implementation of these
features, impacts from construction noise would be less than significant.
Once operational, the proposed modifications would be passive and would not result in permanent
increases in the ambient noise environment.
The Segment 5 extension, on Monroe Street, would be constructed near commercial land uses.
Therefore, there would be a potential for construction vibration to affect the commercial development.
As with the Approved Project, construction of the proposed modifications would provide advanced
notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to residents or property
owners within 300 feet of the alignments. The announcement will state specifically where and when
construction will occur in the area. With this adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration,
impacts from construction vibration were concluded to be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in noise or vibration policies or requirements within the area of
the proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance regarding noise or vibration has become available. Therefore, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to noise or
vibration have been identified.
Conclusion
None ofthe proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to noise and vibration. Additionally, there are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance regarding noise and vibration which was not known and
could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the noise and vibration impacts
and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as
provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
21 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 33 of 223
Population and Housing
Previous Analysis
Analysis of population and housing impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted
15/MND, Section 13, page 15-56. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the components would have no
impact on population growth or on displacing housing or people.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not directly or
indirectly induce population growth because the projects have been developed to accommodate
projected population growth and associated demand. Furthermore, the Approved Project would not
displace housing or people, and therefore, no impacts would occur.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to population and housing. No substantial changes to population and housing have occurred
since adoption of the 15/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant population and housing impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modificat ions. Therefore, the
impacts to population and housing from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163
Public Services
Previous Analysis
Analysis of public services impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted 15/MND,
Section 14, page IS-57. The Adopted 15/MND concluded that the components would have no impacts
public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not result in
impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public faci lities.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
22 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 34 of 223
relative to public services. No substantial changes to public services have occurred since adoption of the
IS/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant public services impacts or a substantial increase in previously
identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to
public services from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Recreation
Previous Analysis
Analysis of recreation impacts ofthe Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section
15, page IS-58. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the components would not result in increased use
of recreational facilities or require the construction of new facilities, and no impacts would occur.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not increase use
of recreational facilities require the construction of new facilities, and no impacts would occur.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Im port a nee
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to recreation impacts. No substantial changes to recreation impacts have occurred since
adoption of the IS/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new recreation impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts
would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to recreation from the
proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163.
Transportation/Traffic
Previous Analysis
Analysis of traffic impacts are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 16, pages IS-58 through IS-60.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in temporary impacts to traffic
circulation, emergency access, and pedestrian and bicycles facilities from construction-related traffic,
due to potential disruption of traffic from lane closures, detours, and increased traffic. Through
preparation of a traffic control plan, as described under Transportation/Traffic in Appendix A of the
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
23 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 35 of 223
Adopted IS/MND, these disruptions would be minimized or avoided and impacts would be less than
significant.
The Adopted IS/MND also concluded that long-term traffic impacts from maintenance and repair
activities would be less than significant, due to the small number of trips that these activities would add
to total daily traffic on the roadways.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications could result in short-term
construction traffic impacts during construction, due to temporary impacts to traffic circulation,
emergency access, and pedestrian and bicycles facilities. As with the Approved Project, the proposed
modifications would implement preparation of a traffic control plan, as described under
Transportation/Traffic in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND. With implementation ofthe plan, these
disruptions would be minimized or avoided and impacts would be less than significant.
After construction, vehicle trips associated with maintenance and repair of the facilities are considered
similar to those previously analyzed under the Adopted IS/MND and would not be considered new
traffic trips. Impacts from operational traffic would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in transportation and traffic conditions within the area of the
proposed modifications since the time of adoption of the IS/M ND. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance regarding transportation and traffic has become available. Therefore, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to transportation
and traffic have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to transportation and traffic. Additionally, there are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance regarding transportation and traffic which was not known
and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the transportation and
traffic impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Utilities and Service Systems
Previous Analysis
Analysis of utilities and service systems impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted
IS/MND, Section 17, pages IS-61 through IS-62.
The analysis of utilities and service systems in the Adopted IS/MND determined that Approved Project
components would use water for fugitive dust control and trench compaction during construction.
However, this use would be temporary and limited to relatively small amounts, and sufficient water
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
24 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 36 of 223
supplies would be available. Impacts from solid waste generation were concluded to be less than
significant, as construction waste would be temporary and limited to small amounts and operation
would not generate solid waste that would impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. The
Approved Project was concluded to not result in impacts to wastewater treatment requirements or
environmental effects from construction of new water or wastewater facilities.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
The proposed modifications would result in similar impacts to the Approved Project. Water for fugitive
dust control and trench compaction during construction would occur; however, the work would be
temporary and limited to relatively small amounts. Solid waste would be disposed of similar to the
Approved Project. The proposed modifications would not require construction of previously unidentified
water or wastewater facilities. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in any new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the Adopted IS/MND, and would not
change the conclusion that less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems would occur.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project is Undertaken/New
Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in utilities and service services, or to the requirements of
agencies that provide such services within the area of the proposed modifications since the adoption of
the IS/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding utilities and service
systems has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of
substantial importance relative to utilities and service systems have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to utilities and service services. Additionally, there are no
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding utilities and service systems
which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the
utilities and service systems impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Previous Analysis
The mandatory findings of significance analysis are included in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 18,
pages IS-63 through IS-67.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded the Approved Project would have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment through indirect runoff impacts to wetlands and sensitive natural communities, and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into the sensitive natural communities.
With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, the biological resource impacts
would be mitigated to less than significant.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
25 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 37 of 223
The Adopted IS/MND also concluded that the Approved Project would result in a substantial adverse
effect on humans related to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. These
potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through implementation of mitigation
measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, Haz-1, and Haz-2.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment through indirect runoff impacts to wetlands and sensitive natural
communities, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into the sensitive
natural communities. With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, the biological
resource impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.
In addition, the proposed modifications would result in a substantial adverse effect on humans related
to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. These potential impacts would be
mitigated to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF,
Haz-1, and Haz-2.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to the mandatory findings of significance analysis.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant mandatory findings of significance impacts or a substantial
increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
Therefore, the impacts to mandatory findings of significance from the proposed modifications do not
meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
Sections 15162 and 15163.
5. Conclusion
Impacts associated with the proposed modifications would not result in a new significant impact or
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts per the Adopted IS/MND, the
focused biological resources study or Class I cultural resource inventory. There are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when
the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental IS/MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and
15163. As such, this Addendum to the Adopted 15/MND satisfies CEQA requirements for the proposed
modifications described herein.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
26 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 38 of 223
6. References
ASM Affiliates Inc. (ASM). Addendum Report: Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for Amendments to
Segments 5 and 7, Potable Water Pipelines, and the D Tank Site for the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
(ASM Project No. 20460). March 26, 2018.
Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for the CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 2014.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). Evaluation Form for Environmental Review and Federal
Coordination for the State Water Resources Control Board SRF Program Application Carlsbad
Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 2013.
2012a. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (EIA
12-02). SCH No. 2012091049. Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. November 2012.
2012b. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and
Recycled Water Master Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 12-01).
Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. SCH No. 2012021006. October 2012.
City of Carlsbad. Final General Plan & Climate Action Plan, September 2015, Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH#2011011004, dated June 2015.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). Update to the Biological Resources Study and IS/MND
findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. March 30, 2018.
Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase
Ill .Recycled Water Project. May 2013.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
27 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 39 of 223
Attachment A
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled
Water Project Final IS/MND
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 40 of 223
Contents
Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................................................................................... MND-1
Comments Received on the IS/MND and Responses ...................................................................................... RTC-1
Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study .................................................................................... IS-1
Project Description/Environmental Setting .................... :. ................................................................................. IS-3
Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... IS-3
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................. lS-17
Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................................................................. IS-17
Project Design and Construction Measures .............................................................................................. IS-17
Environmental Initial Study ............................................................................................................................. IS-20
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................................. IS-20
Determination ........................................................................................................................................... IS-20
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... IS-21
Earlier Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... IS-67
Supporting Information Sources ............................................................................................................... IS-68
Biological Resource Database and Literature Review ............................................................................... IS-70
List of Mitigating Measures ...................................................................................................................... IS-70
Applicant Concurrence with Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... lS-73
Figure 1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... IS-4
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Appendices
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Facility Locations .......................................................... lS-5
Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion .................................................................... lS-7
Expansion Segment lA ..................................................................................................... IS-9
Expansion Segment 2 ..................................................................................................... IS-10
Expansion Segment 4A ................................................................................................... IS-11
Expansion Segment 5 ..................................................................................................... IS-12
Expansion Segment 7 ..................................................................................................... IS-13
Expansion Segment 8 ..................................................................................................... IS-14
Expansion Segment 9 ..................................................................................................... IS-15
Expansion Segment 18 ................................................................................................... IS-16
Proposed Storage Tank Location .................................................................................... IS-18
Phase Ill Indirect Biology Map ........................................................................................ IS-31
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................... IS-19
Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction ............................................ IS-26
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result
in Significant Indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species ..................................... IS-30
City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards ................................................................... IS-54
A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features
B Biological Resourc~s Letter Report
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Pagei
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 42 of 223
I ATKINS
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page ii
~eplember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 43 of 223
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Number: EIA 12-02
Project Title: Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Project Location
The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in
the County of San Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
service area (see Figure 1). A small portion of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) is located in
the City of Vista and a small component (Expansion Segment 5) is located in the City of
Oceanside. The project components will occur within public rights-of-way (ROW) and
easements, with the exception of a portion of pipeline that would extend across the La Costa
Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2.
The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at the existing
CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, 92011. The new or relocated storage
tank would be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site near the intersection of Poinsettia Lane
and Black Rail Road. Expansion Segment 1A (ES 1A) is located in existing roadways south of
Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, and along Camino Via Roble. Expansion Segment
2 (ES 2) is located south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, along the Atchison
Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad track and Avenida Encinas. Expansion Segment 4A (ES 4A)
is located in South Melrose Avenue in the City of Vista, just ~ast of the boundary of Carlsbad
and Vista. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) north and south of State Route 78 (SR-78) along the
Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansion Segment 7
(ES 7) is located south of SR-78, west of College Avenue, and north east of Carlsbad Village
Drive. Expansion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El Camino Real between Aviara and La Costa
Avenue and within the South La Costa Golf Course. Expansion Segment 9 (ES 9) is located north
of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, east of Highway 101, and south of Poinsettia Avenue.
Expansion Segment 18 (ES 18) is located southwest of Maerkle Reservoir along Palmer Way and
Impala Drive.
Description of Project
Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases:
Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase Ill, would
expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial
expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project components would be
completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase Ill project would expand the treatment capacity
(from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the Carlsbad Vl/ater Recycling FacilityCWRF by installing
additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also install
96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing
potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page MND-1
goplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 44 of 223
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT IS/MND
AND RESPONSES
All comments received on the Draft IS/MND have been coded to facilitate identification and tracking. The
City of Carlsbad received eight comment letters on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period that
began on September 19, 2012 and closed on October 18, 2012. The comment letters on the Draft IS/
MND are listed in Table 1 below. Each of the comment letters were reviewed and divided into individual
comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern. Where a letter comments
on more than one issue, each individual comment issue is numbered (A-1, for example) and a specific
response is included for each issue.
Table 1. Comment Letters Received on Draft IS/MND
Com mentor
A Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
B Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission
C Jacob Armstrong, Chief, Development Review Branch,
Department of Transportation
D Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, Brownfields and Environmental Restoration
Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control
E Ahmad Kashkoli, Senior Environmental Scientist,
State Water Resources Control Board
F James W. Royle, Jr., Chairperson, Environmental Review Committee,
San Diego County Archaeological Society
G Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera
H Paul J. Bushee, General Manager, Leucadia Wastewater District
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-i
Date
October 19, 2012
September 24, 2012
September 24, 2012
October 9, 2012
October 17, 2012
September 28, 2012
October 16, 2012
October 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 46 of 223
SCH/I
Project Title
l.eacl Agency
Type
Dr::scrjption
2012091049
COMMENTS
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water ProJect
Carlsbad, City of
MND t\•1itigated Negative Doclaralion
The Phase Ill projec! would expand !he lreatmenl capacity (from 4.0 mgd lo 8 .. 0 mgd) within lho
Carlsbad Water Recycling Fac11;1y by lnstalllng addllional fillralion units and chlorine contact basins.
The Pha$e Ill project would atso im;tall 9-6.600 llnear feet o! pipelines, relocate· Of construct a nev,
slorago lank1 convert existing potable water facmtie.s to recycled waler use, and mtrofit landscape
1mgauon waler systems lo use recycled i,.•Jater in eigh; expansions segment locations throughout tile
projecl area.
Lead Agency Contact
Barbara Kennedy
Carlsbad Municipal Water DislricL
(760) 602-4626 Fax
Name
Age11cy
Phone
email
Address
City
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad State CA Zip 92008
Project Location
County
City
Region
Lat/Long
Cross Slreets
Parcel No.
Township
Proximity to:
Sar Diego
Carlsbad
33" S' 18" N / 117" 13" 37"W
lnterslalo 5 Md Palomar Airport Road
NIA
Rango
Highways Hwy 78
McClelJan,~Palornar1 Ocea.nslde
AT&SF and Coaster
Section
Airports
Raf/ways
Watonvays
Sc/100/s
Lancf Use
Buena Vis.la Creek, Agua Hedionda Cree~;. SE1n Marcos
Carlsbad Unified District
Project Issues Blclaglcal Resources; ToxiclHazardous
Base
Rovlowlng Resourees Agency: Cal!forn!a Coastal Commfssion; Dopar1rnent of Ffsh and Garne, Region S:
Agencies Departrnenl of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Office of Emergency
Management Agency, California; Resources. Recyoling and Recovery; Caltrans, Division of
Aeronautics; Callrornla Highway Patrol; Caltrans, Dlslrlct 11; CA Department of Public Heam,; Stale
Water Resources Control Board. Divison of Fin,;:incii:il Assistance: Reglonal Wator Quality Control
Board, Region 9; D~partmenl ofToxlc Substances Contr'ol; Native American lieri!age Commission;
PubHc Utilities Commission
Date Received 09/19/2012 Start of R<Mow 09/19/2012
ATKINS
Encl of Roviow 10/18/2012
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-2
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 48 of 223
B-1.
B-2.
COMMENTS
NATIVE AMER.ICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAP!TOL MAl.L~ ROOM 3M
SACRAMENTO. CA !15814
(916)1~~·
Fn.,t (U16) &57~5390
\V(tq Sita YL~Jl!lhc:.c.~19.R~
tb ... riahe®pacball,no1
Ms. Barbara K.ennedy, Planner
September 24, 2012
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
~
\~
Re: SCH#2012091049; CEQA Notice qfCompletton: proppsed Mitigated Negative
Declaration; for the "Phase Ill Recycled Water Pr9iect (El.A 12-02)" located In the City of
Carlsba.c;t; San Dil:Jgo C~unty. CaJlfornia
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is "the State of California
'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of N.itive American cultural resources
pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Tlifrd Appellate Court
In the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3"' 604).
This letter Includes stale and federal statutes relating to Native American
historic properties or resources of religfous and cultural significance to American Indian tribes
and interested Native .American lndividuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal
law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religlous Expression in Public
Resources Code §5097.9.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA -CA Public Resources Code
21000-21177, amendments-effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a
substantial adverse change ln the significance of an historical resource, that includes
archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a s!gnifoc1nt Impact on the environment
as 'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within
an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic
SignifiCc1n<;e." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess
whether the project will. have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential
effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effecl The NAHC recommends \hat the lead agency
request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the
proposed project.
The NAHC ·sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native.American. He[itag!,l Commission and
the California Legfslature in California Public Resources Code§§5097.94(a) and 5097.96.
Items in the NAliC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidentfal and exempt from the Public
Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ).
Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area Is the best way to avoid
unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project Is underway.
Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the. religious and cultural
B-1.
B-2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETTER B. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
The first comment introduces the letter and states the role of the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) as a protector of California's Native American Cultural
Resources. The comment describes the definition of 'significant effect' related to
archaeological resources per CEQA guidelines; recommends an NAHC Sacred Lands
File Search because the Area of Potential Effect for projects components are known
to be very cultural sensitive; and states that Sacred Sites, as defined by the California
Public Resources Code, and items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential.
Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural resources
records search performed by Atkins at the South Coastal Information Center in January
2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Sewer, Water, and Recycled Water Master Plans
EIR (Master Plans EIR), which included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed
Phase Ill project. A NAHC SLF search was conducted for the Master Plans EIR. The
search identified known archaeological resources throughout the CMWD service area;
however, the project components would be constructed in previously disturbed areas.
This comment recommends consultation with an attached list of Native American
contacts. Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural
resources records search for the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan
and CMWD Water and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH
#2012021006) (2012 Master Plans EIR), which included the proposed project as part
of the Recycled Water Master Plan. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources,
of the 2012 Master Plans EIR on page 4.4-6, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave
Singleton of the NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, letters to each of
the tribal contacts identified by NAHC in its February 15, 2012 letter, submitted during
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, were sent by Atkins on February
24, 2012. The letters sent to the tribal contacts described the proposed project that
contained maps of the proposed CIP locations, and requested information about the
SLF-listed resources, as well as information about any resources not listed in the SLF for
inclusion in this report.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-4
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 50 of 223
B-2.
cont.
B-3,
B-4.
B-5,
B-6,
B-7.
COMMENTS
significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you
make contact with the list or Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American
contacts, to see it your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to
obtafn their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public
.Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests. cooperation from other public agencies In order
that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information.
Consultatlon wlth Native American communities is also a matter of environmental' Justice as
defined by California Government Code §65040, 12{e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Cod<'
§5097 .95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be pr-0vlded consulting tribal
parties, lnclr.iding archi;ieological s\udias_ The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by
CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage. or destroy Native
American cultural resources and California Public·Resources Code Section 21083.2
(Archaeological Resources) that req·uires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources,
construciion to avoid sites and the possible use of covenant easements to protect sites.
Furthermore, the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statut.es
and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321-43351).
Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list
should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and
4(f) of federal NHPA (16 u_s.c. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part BOD.3 (f) (2) &. .5, the President's
Council on l':nvironmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.C 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U,S.C. '3001-
3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties were revised so thatthey could be applied to all historic resource types
inoluded in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also,
federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preseivation of cultural environment), 13175
(coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful. supportive guides for
Section 106 consullation. The afort1mentloned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include
recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects
s1nd to "research" 1he cultural lands;cape that might include the 'area of potential effect.'
Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be
considered as protected by California Government Code 36254( r) and may also pe protected
l.lnder Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the
federal Indian Religious, Freedom Act (cf. 42 U:S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision 9n whether or
not to olsclose Items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and
possibility threatened by proposed project activity.
Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097 .98, California Government Code.
§27491 and 1-fealth & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provrsions for Inadvertent
discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery
of human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemete.-y''.
To be effecli'le, consultation on specific projects must be the result ofan ongoing
relationship between Native American tribes and lea.d agenciesL project proponents and their
contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding !ril:ial consultation, a relationship buitl
around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes Will lead to more qualitative
consultatJon tribal input on spectflc projects.
Fin;illy, when Native American cultl.lral sites and/or Native American burial sites are
prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends ·avoidance' of the site as referenced by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a).
B-3.
B-4,
B-5.
B-6.
B-7.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment recommends consultation with tribes and interested Native American
parties, in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA). The proposed project does not involve a federal action or federal agency
and is therefore not subject to the requirements of NEPA or Section 106 of the NHPA .
Should the CMWD pursue federal funding in the future, such as through the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, the CMWD will undergo consultation with tribes and
interested Native Americans in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. As
discussed in response to comment B-2, letters to each of the tribal contacts identified
by NAHC during the 2012 Master Plans EIR NOP comment period, which included the
Phase Ill Project components, were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012.
This comment describes the requirements for confidentiality related to historic
properties of religious and cultural significance. The IS/MND recognizes these
requirements; therefore, no sensitive information related to any cultural resources was
disclosed in the IS/MND.
This comment describes regulations that outline procedures to be followed in the
event of an accidental discovery of human remains. As discussed in Section 5 d) of IS
checklist, the procedures detailed in PRC Section 5097.98 and California State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be implemented in the event of unintentional
disturbance of human remains.
This comment is related to consultation with Native American representatives. Tribal
contacts were consulted as part of preparation of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which
included the Phase Ill Project components. Refer to response to comment B-2 for
additional information.
This comment describes the CEQA recommendation to avoid Native American cultural
sites and/or Native American burial sites. Avoidance has already been incorporated in
the project by locating the Phase Ill Project components in previously disturbed areas,
such as within existing roadways and the developed South La Costa Golf Course.
ATKINIS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-5
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 51 of 223
Barona. Group of lhe Capitan Grande
Edwln Romero, Chairperson
1095 Barona Roa,d Olegueno
Lakeside , CA 92040
sue@barona-nsn.gov
(619) 443-6612
619-443-0681
La Pasta Band of Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
COMMENTS
Native American Contacts
San Diego Counly
September 24, 2012
Viejas Sand ol Kurneyaay Indians
Anihony R. Pico, Chairperson
PO Box 908 Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Alpine , CA 91903
Jrothauff@vlejas-nsn.gov
(619) 445·3810
(619) 445-5337 Fax
Jamul Indian Village
Raymond Hunter, Chairperson
PO Box 1120 Diegueno/Kurneyaay P.O. Bo:<. 612 Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Boulevard , CA 91905
gparada@lapostacasino.
(619) 478-2113
619-478-2125
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson
PO Box 365 Dleguano
Valley Center, CA 92082
allenl@sanpasqualba.nd.com
(760) 749-3200
(760) 749-3876 Fax
Sycuan Band or the Kumeyaay Nation
Daniel Tucker, Chairperson
5459 Sycuan Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay
El Cajon , CA 92019
ssi1va@sycuan-ns11.gov
619 445-2613
619 445-1927 Fax
Thi& ltst to e:ur,on.t only 35 nf 11'11, drtla Qf thls.docume.nt_
Jamul , CA 91935
!amutrez@sctdv.net
(619) 669-4785
(619) 669-48178 • Fax.
Mesa Grande BancJ of Mission lndla,ns
Mark Romero. Chairperson
P.O Sox 270 Dlegueno
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070
mesagrandeband@msn.com
(760} 782-3818
(760) 782-9092 Fax
Pala Band of Mission Indians Historic Preservation Office/Shasta Gaughen
:,sooa Pala T wr1ecula Roud, Luiseno F•aiii'" , CA 92059 Cupeno
PMB50
(760) 891-3515
sgaughen@paialribe.com
(760) 742-3189 Fax
Oi,&tribuUtJn of th IN 11:i.t does not rollu,.ir,· ;any .POJS:On of u,y ,ta.lutorv re.4po.-.slbltlty ·as dOUnod In !klclJon 7060.5 of tlie Hoalth and S.ofoty Cbdo,
Socuon 5097.94 QI Iha· Public RCGOltfCO!!I Codo .Dnd SecUvn 50\l7.~8 Qt Iha Pllbtlu ~OfWLltC4S Coda.
thl:i l/5-t 1, 1ippli(;.llblc ft1n,ont:.it.tin11 foeal N.aU\IO A1uerJc.;)·rn;. 'flllh .regard lo cUltul'l)I fllBC>1.1reH for the. p,«ipo:wd
:scu,:2012.Q9104!1; C'EQA NoUca of Compie-lloo; pCQp0r.cd Mltig11,ta<1 NngatlYo Oechn'lll"D.n hu \ho Ph;)Se Ill Rt.•1:.v(.l&.d W.tlcr ProJoct: loc:.·uod
lo ttM, cu, "Of Carlsbad; San OJ.too County. CJJllfbmra.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND {EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-7
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
Novem ber 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 53 of 223
COMMENTS
Native American Contacts
San Diego County
September 24, 2012
Pauma & Yulma Reservation
Randall Majel, Chairperson
P.O. Box369 Luiseno
Pauma Valley CA 92061
paumareservatlon@aol.com
(760) 742-1289
(760) 742-3422 Fax
Rinoon Band of Mission Indians Vincent Whipple, Triba.l HlstoricPreationv. Officer
P.O. Box 68 Lulsano
Valley Center, CA 9208.2
twolfe@rincontribe.org
(760) 297-2635
(760) 297°2639 Fax
Kwaaymli Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas
P.O. Box 775 Diegueno •
Pine Valley , CA 91962
(619) 709-4207
Jnaja Band of Mission Indians
Rebecca Osuna, Chairman
2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Dlegueno
Escondido . CA 92025
(760) 737-7628
(760) 747-8568 Fax
tt1I$ UM 15 c.a1rmnionly ~ of UH, d.itoor this dqcumonL
Paurna Valley Band. of Luisefio Indians
Bennae Calac. Trlbal Council Member
P.O. Box 369 Lulseno
Pauma Valley CA 92061
bennaecalac@aol.com
(760) 617-2872
(760) 742-342.2 -FAX
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
P,O. Box 68 Lulseno
Valley Center, CA 92082
boma.uelti@aol.com
(760) 749-1051
(760} 74.9-8901 Fax
San Pasqual Band ol Indians Krislie Orosco, Environmenlal Coordinator
P.O. Box 365 Luiseno
Valley Center, CA 92082 Dlegueno
(760) 749-3200
council@sanpasquallrlbe.org
(760) 749-3876 Fax
Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Will M[cklin, Executive Director
4054 WIiiows Road Dlegueno/Kumeyaay
Alpine , CA ~1901
wrnicklln@leanlngrock.net
(G·rs) 445-6315 • voice
(619) 445-9126 • fax
Oimr4bullon of'U1ls Ustao.M. not ,011ovo orw p,ors.on: otlM statutory ro,;ponsltlllrl')'ilS dsrmi,CI In Soct1or1 7060 . .6 Qf ltle Healtn aod Satoly coou,
:Se-etton 6097.9'4 or lhc Publle RNOUl'"CCS. Codi, and St.>etltin 50!l7.9U of the PUbllc RIHl:OUtCM Code.
Thlr;rl~t Is .ir,ipll<::ffblo for t:or1t11ctlng lcc:il Nt1U...i·Am!):,l~ns. wlth 111,gan, lo nt.1llu(ill rasourcu for the proposed
nCHi\'2:0f209fQO; ce·aA Not/ct, of Comp1ollon; propoe.ud Mllig~ted NooaUvo Oocl.,nillon IDf" lhu. Philso1U f{.Q'(.yt~d Wotcr Projor.t; lo~1f;!(I
In lhO Cl~ ot O.:irt1bnd; San Die!!JO County, ~ntamla.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-8
'
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 54 of 223
COMMENTS
Native American Contacts
San Diego County
September 24, 2012
San Luis Rey Band 01' Mission Indians
Cultural Department
1 B89 Sunset Drive
Vista CA 92081
760-724-8505
760-724-2172 -fax
Luiseno
Cupeno
La Jolla Band or Mission Indians
Lavonne Peck, Chairwoman
22000 Highway 76 Luiseno
Pauma Valle14 CA 92061
rob.roy@lajolla-nsn.gov
(760) 742-3796
(760) 7<12-1704 Fax
lpai Nation of Santa Ysabel Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 507 DiegUeno/Kumeyaay
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070
cjllnton73@aol.com
(760) 803-569'1
cjllnton73@aol.com
Inter-Tribal Cultural Resource Protection Council Frank Brown, Coordinator
240 Brown Road Dlegueno/Kumeyaay
Alpine , CA 91901
frankbrown6928@gmall.com
(619) 884-6437
TI1's llt.l 15 current only ;;,:. of the do.toot th~ doc.umonL
l(umeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee
Bernice Paipa. Vice Spokesperson
1095 Barona Road Dlegueno/Kumeyaay
Lakeside , CA 92040
(619) 478-2113
(KCRC ls a Colation of 12
Kumeyaay Governments
Olstrllmtion ot u,1,. !1st doos ""' roli11YC ;uiy p~nnori al lhD .suwrory rD&pon~lbllll)' n dCfinod ro SecUon 1050.S of tJ10 8'1-Dtlll and S11rety Code.
511Ctfon 0097.~'4 of lhl' Pu.bHc R~11our«:t1.!i·Cadt! c111d S(!~l'Jon 5097.911 of tho PubtJc Resou~c Codo.
lhls IUlt is' .IJ}plltuble ,(If ccmtaclJno Joe.JI Natlvo Amo,Jconn. with regard lo culhlriJI ru&ourcc.s for !hu 1>ropo!'.ied
JJCH.#20120910•9; CEOA Notito of ComploUon: proposed MiUg,atud Negii'!li'i'U Oct:.larirUon lor U1e Ph1uJ.e 111 Rooyc[od Warm ProJoct: IJ)i;atod
In lhc City of curtst>ad: Sdn Diogo Count~. eanroml;i.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-9
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 55 of 223
COMMENTS
filtll»OFCAI IFORNtA-PUSJNT;SS IRANSPORJATIQC A.HP HOU~rNQ AQfN v PMtC>V O BROWN Jr Gorrnm:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, DIVISION OF PLANNING • 4050 TAYLOR ST, M.S. 240
SAN DlllOO, CA 92110
PHONE (619)688-6960 Fle.t_yo1Jrpawttrl
Bt: ~t!rgy~ffict,mtl FAX (619) 688-4299
l"fY 711
www.dotca.gov
C-1.
September 24, 2012
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Ms. Kelllledy:
11-SD-5
PM 44.07-50.68
Carlsbad MWD Phase liI Recycled Water
MND I SCH #2012091049
The California Department of Transportation (Cal trans) received the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Water Dislrict Phase Ill Recycled
Water project (SCH #2012091049) for the City of Carlsbad. Caltrans has the following
comments:
Any utility crossings of freeways will need an encroachment pennit from Cal trans. Please refer
to Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual
{http://www.dotca.gov/hg/traffopsldevelopserv/pennits/encroachment permits manual/index.ht
mD for guidance on utility encroachment.
Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the
Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised
for all encroachment permits.
If you have any questions, please contact Leila Ibrahim, Development Review Branch, at (619)
688-6802.
'7Z'ff1-z: ARMSTRONG, Chief
Development Review Branch
C-1.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETIER C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
This comment states that any utility crossings of freeways will need an encroachment
permit from Caltrans and provides sources of information regarding encroachment
permits. Table 1 on page A-3 in Appendix A of the IS/MND, Federal, State, or Local
Permits and Approvals, has been revised to include encroachment permits from
Caltrans in the list of applicable permits for the proposed project. An encroachment
permit would potentially be required for Phase Ill Project component ES 5 that
proposes construction on either side of State Route 78.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012
. Page RTC-1 0
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 56 of 223
D-1.
cont.
D-2.
D-3.
D-4.
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
October 9, 2012
Page 2
COMMENTS
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• EnviroStor (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through
DTSC's website (see below).
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A
database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCUS): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
• Geo Tracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
• Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites {FUDS).
2) The MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site within the proposed Project area that may be
contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory
oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to
review such documents.
3) Any environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for a site should
be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of
any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment
Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in
which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be
clearly summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval
reports by regulatory agencies should be included in the MND.
D-2.
D-3.
D-4.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE Ill lS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the IS/MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any
required investigation or remediation within potentially contaminated areas. Section
{d) of the JS checklist already identifies this mechanism through mitigation measures
Haz-1 and Haz-2. Mitigation measure Haz-1 requires construction monitoring by
an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the
potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon
contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at
a licensed facility in accordance with San Diego County Department of Environmental
Health {DEH) requirements. Mitigation measure Haz-2 requires a construction worker
health and safety plan that would include a description of engineering controls and
measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to
site workers, the public and the environment in the unlikely event of excavating
contaminated soil from the construction area. The engineering controls shall be
provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval.
This comment states that any environmental investigations, sampling, and/or
remediation should be conducted under a workplan approved and overseen by a
regulatory agency. As described in response to comment D-2, mitigation measure
Haz-2 requires a construction worker health and safety plan that would be submitted
to the DEH for approval. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils,
these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in
accordance with DEH requirements, as required in mitigation measure Haz-1.
This comment states that if demolition would be required, an investigation should
be conducted for the presence of hazardous materials. The proposed project would
not require demolition of any buildings. Existing roadway pavement may be removed
to install pipeline; however these paved areas do not contain mercury or asbestos
containing materials. Mitigation measure Haz-1 requires construction monitoring
by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the
potential presence of hazardous materials. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon
4) If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a
planned to be demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements.
AT KINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-12
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 58 of 223
D-4.
cont.
D-5.
D-6.
D-7.
D-8.
D-9.
COMMENTS
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
October 9, 2012
Page 3
presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing
materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or
products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken
during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be
remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies.
5) Project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas.
Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, ii must be properly disposed
and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import
soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure
that the imported soil is free of contamination.
6) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the field activities. If necessary, a health risk assessment overseen and
approved by the appropriate government agency should be conducted by a
qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are, have been, or will be,
any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the
environment.
7) If the project area was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite
soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic
waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if
necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a
government agency at the site prior to construction of the project.
8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that
hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United
States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting
(800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous
materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement
for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
9) DTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight
Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a
Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VGA) for private parties. For additional
information on the EOA or VCA, please see
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif-
Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, al (714) 484-5489.
D-5.
D-6.
D-7.
D-8.
D-9
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that contaminated soil may be encountered and should be
properly disposed. Consistent with the recommendations of this comment, mitigation
measure Haz-1 requires construction monitoring by an individual licensed in the State
of California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of hazardous materials.
In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils, these soils shall be
properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH
requirements.
This comment states that a health risk assessment should be conducted to determine
if there has been or will be any release of hazardous materials as a result of project
construction. An appropriate assessment is already included in the IS/MND. Hazards
and hazardous materials are evaluated in Section 8 of the IS checklist, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials. A records search was conducted for the proposed project in
February 2012, as described 'in Section 8 d} of the IS checklist. Construction of ES 2,
ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potential to encounter contaminated soil
during construction activities and expose construction workers to a significant hazard.
Therefore, mitigation measures Haz-1 and Haz-2 are identified to reduce potential
hazards to a less than significant level.
This comment includes recommendations for sites that were previously used for
agricultural activities. The project does not propose any components on lands
previously used for agriculture. The Phase Ill Project components would be located
within existing roadways, CMWD property, and a golf course. Therefore, this comment
does not apply.
This comment lists applicable regulations for facilities that would generate hazardous
wastes. As discussed in Section 8 (a} of the IS checklist, the CWRF expansion would
be the only Phase Ill Project component with the potential to generate hazardous
waste. The CWRF currently uses chemicals and other hazardous materials in its
treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additional use of these
materials, including chlorine. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP} has already
been prepared for the CWRF in accordance with DEH, Hazardous Materials Division
requirements. The proposed new CWRF treatment facilities would be required to be
incorporated into the existing CWRF HMBP. Disposal of CWRF equipment, such as
filters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state
and local laws and regulations. Therefore, the commenter's recommendations have
already been incorporated into the IS/MND.
This comment describes services that the DTSC can provide. It does not address
the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the 15/MND. No response is
necessary.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-13
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 59 of 223
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
October 9, 2012
Page4
COMMENTS
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Rafiq Ahmed, Project
Manager, at rahmed@dtsc.ca.gov, or by phone at (714) 484-5491.
Sincerely,
0-f'{ f}L-1
Rafiq Ahmed
Project Manager
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov.
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control .,
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
P.O. Box806
' Sacramento, California 95812
Attn: Nancy Ritter
nritter@dtsc.ca.gov
CEQA# 3654
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-14
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 60 of 223
E-1.
~ ~
Water Boards
COMMENTS
State Water Resources Control Board
OCT 1 7 2012
Barbara Kennedy
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue
San Diego, CA 92008
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
~~1G.811.nr,i,,;J..._
~~. M1t-Ol-lf""fll)W',<ll1f.l. r-,...__. ll-C.><i.f•~"411 ,~~t>,l .. ~ -U;'l;TIIJ!l
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) FOR
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (DISTRlcn: PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER
PROJECT (PROJECT); SAN DIEGO COUNTY; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012091049
We understand that the District is pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
financing for this Project (CWSRF No. C-06-7151-110). As a funding agency and a state
agency with jurisdiction by law to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California's
water resources, the State Water Resources Control Bo.ird (State Water Board) is providing the
following information and comments on the IS/MND to be prepared for the Project.
Please provide us with the following documents applicable to the proposed Project following the
District's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process: (1) one copy of the draft and
final IS/MND, (2) the resolution adopting the IS/MND and making CEQA findings, (3) all
comments received during the review period and the District's response to those comments, (4)
the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and (5) the Notice of
Determination filed with the San Diego County Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research, State Clearinghouse. In addition. we would appreciate notices of any hearings or
meetings held regarding environmental review of any projects to be funded by the State Water
Board.
The State Water Board, Division of Financial Assistance, is responsible for administering the
CWSRF Program. The primary purpose for the CWSRF Program is to implement the Clean
Water Act and various state laws by providing financial assistance for wastewater treatment
facilities necessary to prevent water pollution, recycle water, correct nonpoint source and storm
drainage pollution problems, provide for estuary enhancement, and thereby protect and promote
health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the state, The CWSRF Program provides low-
interest funding equal to one-half of the most recent State General Obligation Bond Rates with a
20-year term. Applications are accepted and processed continuously. Please refer to the State
Water Board's CWSRF website at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srf/index.shtml.
The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
and requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review. Four
enclosures are included that further explain the CWSRF Program environmental review process
and the additional federal requirements.
E-1.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETIER E. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
This comment states that it is the understanding of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) that the CMWD is pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
financing and outlines the requirements to obtain funding. It is uncertain at this time
whether or not the CMWD will pursue CWSRF funding for this project. However, if
CMWD does choose to pursue this funding, ~hey will comply will all applicable SWRCB
requirements.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-15
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 61 of 223
E-1.
cont.
COMMENTS
The State Water Board is required to consult directly with agencies responsible for
implementing federal en11lronmental laws and regulations. Any environmental issues raised by
federal agencles or their representatives will need to be resolved prior to State Water Board
approval of a CWSRF financing commitment for the proposed Project. For further information
on the CWSRF Program, please contact Mr. Ahmad Kashkoli, at (916) 341-5855.
!t is import.int to note that prior to a CWSRF financing commitmenl, projects are subject to
provisions Of the Federal Endangered Sp1;1cies Act (ESAJ, and must obtain Section 7 clearance
from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or
the United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for any potential effects to special-status spedes.
Please be advised that the State Waler Board will consult with USFWS, and/or NMFS regarding
all federal special-status species that the Project has. the potential to impact if the Project is to
be funded under the CWSRF Program. The District will need to identify whether the Project will
involve any direct effects from construction activities, or Indirect .effects such as growth
inducement, that may affect federally lisied threatened, endangered, or candidate species that
are known, or have a potential 1o occur on-site. in the surrounding a(eas, or in the service area.
and to identify applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects.
In addition, CWSRF prqjects must comply with federal laws pertaining to cultural resources, ·
specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Aot. The State Water Board has
responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 106, and must consult directly with the
California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). SHPO consultation is initiated when
· sufficient information is provided by the CWSRF applicant. If the District decides to pursue
CWSRF financing, please retain a consultant that meets the Secretary of the Interior's
ProfessionaJ Qualifications Standards {www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch stnds 9.htm) to prepare
a Section 106 compliance report.
Note Iha.I the District will need to identify the Area of Potential Effects (APE), including
construction and staging areas, and the depth of any excavation. The APE is three-c:lirnensional
and includes all areas that may be affected by the Project. The APE Includes-the surface. area
and extends below ground to the depth of any Project excavations. The records search request
should be made for an area larger than the APE. The appropriate area varies for different
projects but should be drawn large enough lo provide information on what types of sites may
exist in the viclnity.
Please contact M~. Susan Stewart at (916) 341-6983 to find out more about the requirements,
and to initiate the Section 106 process.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-16 -
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 62 of 223
E-1.
cont.
E-2.
COMMENTS
Other federal requirements pertinent to the Project under the CWSRF Program Include the
following:
A. Compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act: (a) Provide air quality studies that may have
been done for the Project; and (b) if the Project is in a nonattainment area or attainment
area subject to a maintenance plan; (i) provide a summary of the estimated emissions
(in tons per year) that are expected from both the construction and operation of the
Project for each federal criteria pollutant in a nonattainment or maintenance area, and
indicate if the nonattainment designation is moderate, serious, or severe (if applicable);
(ii) if emissions are above the federal de minim is levels, but the Project is sized to meet
only the needs of current population projections that are used in the approved State
Implementation Plan for air quality, quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity
increase was calculated using population projections.
B. Compliance with the Coastal .Zone Management Act: identify whether !he Project is
within a coastal zone and the status of any coordination with the California Coastal
Commission.
C. Protection of Wetlands: Identify any portion of the proposed Project area that should be
evaluated for wetlands or United States waters delineation by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), or requires a permit from the USACE, and identify the
status of coordination with the USACE.
D. Compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act: Identify whether the Project will
result in the conversion of farmland. State the status of farmland (Prime, Unique, or
Local and Statewide Importance) in the Project area and determine if this area is under a
Williamson Act Contract.
E. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: List any birds protected under this act
that may be impacted by the Project and identify conservation measures to minimize
impacts.
F. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Act: Identify whether or not the Project is
in a Flood Management Zone and include a copy of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency flood zone maps for the area.
G. Compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: ldenUfy whether or not any Wild and
Scenic Rivers would be potentially impacted by the Project and include conservation
measures to minimize such impacts.
Following are specific comments on the District's IS/MND:
1. Mitigation Measure Bio-1A states that "Prior to removal or damage of any active nests or
any tree pruning or removal operations during the prime nesting seasons, that being
from March 15 to May 30, a qualified biologist shall survey the trees to determine if there
are any active nests within 500 feet of the area of tree removal or pruning.• However,
Page 31, under Biological Resources, mentions that the raptor nesting season is from
January 15-July 31, the general nesting season is from February 1-August 31, and
Mitigation Measure Bio-10 slates that the general breeding season is from January 15-
September 15.
E-2.
.,..
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that there are inconsistencies between the breeding seasons
or nesting seasons reported in the IS/MND and that the breeding season should be
consistent with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements.
The discussion of breeding seasons in Section 4 a) of the Initial Study checklist has
been revised to be consistent with the more conservative breeding season identified
in mitigation measures Bio-lA and Bio-lD (January 15 to September 15). The breeding
season definition is consistent with the breeding seasons identified in the Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan, which was approved by CDFG and USFWS. The prime
breeding season identified in mitigation measure Bio-lA is not inconsistent with
the general breeding season, as indicated by the commenter. The prime nesting
season corresponds to a peak time period within the general breeding season when
the majority of bird species known to breed in the region are most likely to have
established a breeding territory and have an association with an active bird nest.
Mitigation measure Bio-lA proposed within Section 4 of the Initial Study checklist
includes pre-construction requirements for a qualified biologist to confirm, in
writing, that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur if project
construction is planned to occur during any portion of the general breeding season
(January 15 to September 15). Nevertheless, to achieve consistency and improve
clarity of the measure, mitigation measure Bio-lA has been revised as stated below
to remove reference to the prime nesting season and ensure that all pre-construction
requirements correspond with the entire general breeding season time period. To
further improve clarity of the measure, mitigation measure Bio-lA has also been
revised to replace the term "vacated" with the statement, "no longer active and all
nestlings have fledged the nest". Mitigation measure Bio-lA has also been revised
to clarify the timeframe for pre-construction surveys. Last, mitigation measure
Bio-lA requires the City to restrict construction activities to ensure that no nest is
inadvertently abandoned by a bird. The City is not proposing a measure to pursue and
require authorization or a permit from the CDFG or USFWS to purposely and actively
cause a nest to be abandoned; therefore, a provision for CDFG and USFWS protocol for
vacating nests is not necessary. Mitigation measure Bio-lB has been revised as follows
to clarify the timeframe for pre-construction surveys.
Bio-lA Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting
birds, including rap tors, protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code,
the CMWD shall enforce the following:
Prior to construction activities requiring the removal. pruning. or damage
of any actfoe ,Jests 01 trees. shrubs. and man-made structures (e.g .•
buildings. bridges. etc.) a11y t, ee p, 1:mi119 01 1 emooal ope, anons during the
prime general 1'te5tirtg breeding seasons, that being from Ma, ch 15 to May
'38Januarv 15 to September 15, the Citv shall retain a qualified biologist to
s.ia/1 st:11 ~e o the t, us perform a pre-construction survey to determine if there
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-17
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 63 of 223
COMMENTS
Thank you for the opportunity to review the District's IS/MND. If you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me at (916) 341-5855, or by email at
AKashkoli@waterboards.ca.gov, or contact Jessica Collado at (916) 341-7388, or by email at
JCollado@waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
A~ t~i4-t?lr-
Ahmad Kashkoli
Senior Environmental Scientist
cc: State Clearinghouse
(Re: SCH# 2012091049)
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
E-5.
E-6.
E-7.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment requests clarification whether the Twin D site and CWRF expansion
were included in the cultural resources record search. These project components were
included in 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan, and the cultural resources record search
conducted for the 2012 Master Plans EIR.
This comment requests a copy of the cultural resources record search and associated
archaeological sensitivity maps. The commenter is requesting this information for the
purposes of consultation required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF financing.
Should the CMWD pursue CWSRF funding in the future, the CMWD will comply will all
applicable State Water Resources Control Board requirements.
This comment requests copies of correspondence with the NAHC in order to confirm
that Native American consultation has been completed. A description of Native
American consultation is provided in response to comment B-2. As part of preparation
of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave Singleton of the
NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, letters to each of the tribal contacts
identified by NAHC were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. The letters described
the proposed project and contained maps of the proposed CIP locations, including
the Phase Ill project components. Copies of the Native American correspondence are
provided as Appendix D to the 2012 Master Plans EIR, available for review at the City of
Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
E-8. This comment requests demonstration of Section 106 compliance. Section 106
consultation is required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF financing. Should the
CMWD pursue CWSRF funding in the future, the CMWD will comply will all applicable
State Water Resources Control Board requirements.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
~ Page RTC-19
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 65 of 223
COMMENTS
9 \11,co c0
+ "+ .. ~ "' ...
.c::; ; . ~ >-San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
~ ~ ,. Envirorunental Review Committee
('I "' .s, ...
-1. o" 28 September 2012
F-1.
F-2.
"'O 4JI toc,c,.."
To:
Subject:
Ms. Barbara Ke!llledy
Planning Division
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Phase III Recycled Water Project
EIA 12-02
Dear Ms. Kelllledy:
I have reviewed the subject DMND on behalf of this committee of the San Diego County
Archaeological Society.
Based on the infonnation contained in the DMND and initial study, we have the following
comments:
1. Page IS-37 of the initial study states that. for areas which "would involve installation ofnew
pipelines located entirely within existing roadways", that "Archaeological resources within
the roadway ROW would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction." Any
number of cases could be cited to disprove this unfounded assumption. The City of San
Diego has required monitoring in many situations for just such work and has encountered
numerous archaeological deposits which were, in fact, protected by the roadway rather than
destroyed by it. Ms. Myra HemnaM at the City (mhernnaM@sandiego.gov) can verify that
fact.
2. To address this possibility, a qualified archaeologist must review the entire route of these
new pipelines and identify any areas where unknown subsurface deposits could exist. If, for
example, development took place in an area prior to CEQA implementation requiring
cultural resources studies, all but the portions of cultural deposits could have been destroyed
without their being recorded. Archaeological and Native American monitoring should then
be required for those portions of the routes of the new pipelines, with detailed requirements
addressing the procedures to be followed if resources are encountered, up to and including
analysis, report preparation and curation of cultural material not associated with human
remains.
P.O. Box 81106 San Diego, CA 92138-1106 (858) 538-0935
F-1.
F-2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LEITER F. SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
This comment states that the conclusion in Section 5 (b) of the IS checklist that
archaeological resources within previously disturbed areas is unfounded because
archaeological resources have been uncovered during similar construction activities in
the City of San Diego. The IS/MND recognizes that, due to the high cultural resource
sensitivity in the area, unknown cultural resources may still be uncovered during
ground disturbing construction activities. Appendix A of the IS/MND, Regulatory
Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features, includes a procedure
for the accidental discovery of archeological resources that would reduce potential
impacts to potentially significant unknown archaeological resources to a less than
significant level. If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during construction,
or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources is
encountered, all ground-disturbing activity will cease within 100 feet of the resource.
A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD to assess the find, and
to determine whether the resource requires further study. No further grading will
occur in the area of the discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to
protect the resources.
This comment states that a qualified archaeologist should review the entire route of
the proposed pipelines and identify any areas where unknown subsurface deposits
could exist. Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural
resources records search performed by a qualified archeologist at the South Coastal
Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which
included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase Ill project components.
The purpose of the record search and outreach to Native American contacts, described
in response to comment 8-2, was to identify those projects with the highest potential
for adversely affecting cultural resources. The analysis identified known archaeological
resources throughout the CMWD service area; however, the project components
included in the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project would be constructed entirely within
previously disturbed areas. Therefore, this recommendation has already been
incorporated into the IS/M ND.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-20
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 66 of 223
G-4.
COMMENTS
these systems will be connected and what additional system modifications and impacts
associated with those modifications may occur in the two cities that will be affected by
Carlsbad's plan. It is understood that the City of Carlsbad will not pursue expansion into
these cities until agreements have been reached over such issues and cost sharing. The
need to modify pipelines or other infrastructure within these two cities is a potential
indirect impact that has not been identified or mitigated.
This MND has not described what actions have been taken to comply with permit
requirements related to wetland impacts. Specifically this requires that impacts are first
G-5. I avoided, then minimized and then mitigated. Putting in language that says wetlands
impacts are being avoided does not demonstrate exactly what has been done to assure that
there has been full compliance witl1 this required process.
Bio 1-b needs to be modified to include that biologist will also assess the open space
areas for potential impacts on wildlife movement corridors and will take action to
mitigate any potential temporary construction or pennanent impacts. This should
include not just what is identified as connecting linkages in the HMP, but actual on-the
ground movement corridors that have been modifie·d over time because of construction
and otl1er barriers that have changed historic movement patterns since tile MHCP
corridors were mapped 15 years ago. See Wildlife Corridor study submitted to the city as
G-6. I part of the analysis done for the new Carlsbad High School by Dudek in April 2010.
The program level EIR has not included appropriate reference to the adopted Agua
Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and such subsequent watershed
management plans that may be adopted prior to these Phase III projects moving forward.
Reference to the AHWMP as a guidelines document was included in the city's adopted
Drainage Master Plan and should also be incorporated in this project level and the
program level EIR as a guidelines document
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working witll you to
address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard Cc: Bryand Duke CDFG,
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera ~ Janet Stuckrath USFWS
G-4.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the MND has not described what actions would be taken to
comply with wetland permit requirements. As discussed in Section 4c) of the Initial
Study checklist, none of the proposed project components would result in direct
discharge, dredge, or fill activities within jurisdictional resources, including wetlands.
Due to the location of the proposed project components within upland areas, none are
expected to result in inadvertent discharge, dredge, or fill activities within jurisdictional
resources.
Portions of ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, and ES 8 are located within upland areas that occur in the
immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas potentially supporting wetlands. Potentially
significant indirect impacts were identified. Potential indirect impacts to federally
protected wetlands and other jurisdictional resources would be reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards and
regulations discussed in Section 9 and Appendix A of the IS checklist; incorporation
of project design and construction features identified for Biological Resources and
Hydrology and Water Quality in Appendix A of the IS Checklist; and, implementation of
Mitigation Measures Bio-18, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF.
The proposed project components would not result in direct impacts to wetlands;
therefore, wetland permits would not be required and avoidance has already been
incorporated into the siting and design of the proposed project. Mitigation measure
Bio-18 requires pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist to verify existing
biological resources adjacent to project construction areas, including the presence or
absence of potential jurisdictional resources and wetlands. If potential jurisdictional
resources or other sensitive biological resources are determined to exist or have
the potential to exist adjacent to project construction areas, the City will further
implement Mitigation measure Bio-lC, which requires fencing to be installed to clearly
delineate the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of
environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. In addition,
the City will restrict all construction staging areas through the implementation of
mitigation measure Bio-lE and, through the implementation of mitigation measure
Bio-lF, will retain a qualified biologist to perform contractor awareness training to
inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/
or minimization requirements. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately demonstrates how
impacts to sensitive areas would be avoided, as recommended by the commenter.
G-5. This comment states that the IS/MND should include mitigation to require an
assessment of open space areas for potential impacts to wildlife corridors during
construction. As discussed in Section 4d) of the IS checklist, all of the Phase Ill project
component sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW or
disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The sites
do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of
any known or potential local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. The proposed
project components will be constructed within areas that already represent permanent
development barriers to wildlife movement. As it concerns the project components
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14. 2012
Page RTC-23
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 69 of 223
COMMENTS
AT KIN S
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
identified as having potential indirect impacts on biological resources (i.e., ES 1, ES
2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9), installation and operation activities associated with recycled
water pipelines within existing disturbed and developed areas would not be expected
to adversely affect wildlife movement and would not necessitate the additional
measures suggested by the commenter. Therefore, the recommended modifications
to mitigation measure Bio-18 do not apply to the proposed project.
G-6. This comment states that the 2012 Master Plans EIR does not include appropriate
reference to the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and other
plans that may be adopted prior the Phase Ill projects moving forward. The comment
also states that the AHWMP was incorporated into the City's drainage master plan
and should be incorporated in the IS/MND. The comment as it relates to the 2012
Master Plan EIR does not apply to the proposed project. The Agua Hedionda WMP1
implementation actions are to be implemented by local jurisdictions and agencies,
such as incorporating low impact development techniques into local codes. The Agua
Hedionda WMP does not include requirements to be implemented by individual
developments, such as the Phase Ill project components. Therefore, the WMP is not
considered an applicable local regulations and is not listed in the list of applicable
hydrology and water quality regulations in Section 9a) of the IS checklist. It would be
speculative to include watershed management plans that may or may not be adopted
in the future; therefore, potential watershed management plans are not addressed in
the IS/MND.
1 Tetra Tech. 2008. Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan. Produced for the City of Vista.
August.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-24
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 70 of 223
H-3.
H-4.
H-5.
COMMENTS
Project Desc1·Jpt1011
The Project description for the ES8 segment does not accurately describe the Ullimate pmpose of tl1e
l::S8 Project element, wllich is lo replace and cause the· aba.ndon111ent of the Gafner Plant. Instead, the
MND erron0m1sly Identifies lhe Gafner Plant as an lnaclive facility (SBe, e,g., FlgLire 9.).
For lhe record, the Gainer Plant t1as been the only supply of recycled water lo t11e south La Costa golf
course since the early i960's. Due ta increased regulatory requirements there were intetmlllent
periods of time where recycled water was not delivered to south course. The Gsfner Plant was
upgraderJ in ·J 993 to meet new regulatory standards for recycled water, inclucting a one 1111111011 gallon
per day filtration planl that provides a third stage of treal111ent over and above Gafner's original primary
and secondary facilities. LWD has Sl/pplied recycled water to south La Costa golf course either by way
of-a direct contract between LWD and La Costa or via an agreement with the Ci\y of Carlstlacl since the
early 1960's. Its operations are. ongoing and LWD has no plans lo abandon the facility.
The MND Relied Upon Erroneous Slatoments And
Assumptions Contained in l'he Recycled Water Master Plan
Tl1e MND's erroneous conclusions regarding the status of the Gafner Plan! appear to be based upon
Inaccurate statemenls and conclusions fotlnct In Jls Recyc!ecl Water Master Plan ("Master Plan") and Its
l:IR that were recently circulatec! for public review and com111ent, including tile following statements
founcl in the Mester Plan al Section 2.7 .5, pp. 2-20-2·1:
'I, "CMWD staff lwve stated that the aging naturo of the, Gafner WRP has led to a nu111bor of
operational Issues'' As the General Manager for owner and operator of the Gaf11er Plant, I can
assL1re yoq that this ' state111ent is lncorrect. The Gafner Plant has, With few inlem1ptlcms,
continuously supplied recycled water to under Its contract Wilh Carlsbad, since operations of the
upgraded facilities began In 1993. There are no operational issues jeopardizing the viability of
the Plant, and most impottantly, no plan by LWO to terminate Its. operation.
2. "Gafner WRP has frequent stmt ups and sht!I downs that most liltely exacerbate the
opero1tlonal Issues that CMWO curronlly pays t o resolve." Again, lhis erroneously assumes
thal there are 011eratio11al issues. Operations al l11e Gainer Plant do slflrt up and shul down
frequenlly due lo the soulh course's varyl11g demands for recycled water. However, this Is a
condilion that has existed ror decades ancJ It l1as !101 interfered with the viability of the Gafner
Plant. More l111po1tant, the price CMWD pays for recycled water has never varied based L1po11
start lip$ or sl,ul downs of the Gafner Plant.
3. "[TJho Gafner WRP Is not optimally utilized since !Im south golf course demand is fa1·
less th1111 tl1e 111lni111um amount of recycled wator that CMWO is required to purchase
from LWWO. To further compound Iha problem, the La Costa Resort & Sp& further
roduces recyr.led water damancl to Its south golf course by blending Gafner RWP effluent
with potablo water lo decrease TOS conccmtrntlons for irrigation of nolt cQurao toes and
putting greens." This assu,nplion is flawed because, until recenlly, LWO was u11cter the
lrnptession th&l ft was supplying the full south course cJemand for recycled water, which is less
lhan the take or pay contract amount with Carlsbad. However, the second sentence of thit
statement reflects the fact thal Carlsb~cl has chosen to allgw La Costa to supplement its
demand with potable water despite the fact lhal the City's Recycled Water Ordinance No. 43
requires recycled waler to be used. It Is possible that the full talle or pay amount could have
Ileen ullil~ecl under the contract if the City had followed Its own ordinance, which would have
savecl-a significant a111ount of expenditures for Llnused recycled waler.
H-3.
H-4.
H-5.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the description of ES 8 does not accurately describe the
purpose of the ES 8 element and incorrectly identifies the Gafner Plant as an inactive
facility. Figure 9 has been revised to identify the Gafner WRF as active. Refer to
response to comment 7 of the Utilities Department response letter. The project
does not propose the abandonment of the Gafner Plant. The new pipeline ES8 has
been sized for additional recycled water deliveries to numerous locations along its
alignment, and to OMWO. However, the activit y or inactivity of the Gafner Plant, and
the CMWO use of the facility, do not affect the analysi s of the ES 8 project component.
No revisions to the IS/MNO are required in response to this comment.
The section of the letter states that the conclusions found in the Program EIR and IS/
MNO are based on incorrect information regarding the status of the Gafner Plant and
include comments on issues regarding the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master
Plan. Please refer to the Utilities Department response to comments 8 through 13.
This section of the letter comments on the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master
Plan. It does not address the analysis of the environmental impacts of the plans
contained in the IS/MND. Please refer to responses to comments 1 through 13 in the
attached Utilities Department response to comments on the Master Plan.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-26
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 72 of 223
H-5.
cont.
H-6.
H-7.
H-8.
COMMENTS
In addition, the. quality of 'the recycled waler supplied from Gainer has conslstenlly met
require111ents of the corit,acl with Carlsbad since t11e advanced treatment facility began
operating in "1993. FurthernlClre, there Is no evidence in the record lo Indicate thal recycled
water produced by the City's recycled water system would be any different with regard to Its
TDS concentrations, and as s,1ch lhe circumstance in which potable water is used WOLtld not be
changed by the Project. Therefore, LWD reiterates \hat the City's assumptions ,ire lncon·ect
<1nd it was al the fUII discretion of the City to not maximir.e U1e take or pay component of the
agreement
4. "[l]he La Costa Resort & Spa In 2010 indicated that tJ1ey are planning 011 significant
changes, which include red11cing the amount of Irrigated turf,. and piping potable water to
the {Jl'Oens and tel!S. These chang.es will further reduce their irrigation den1a11d on U1e
recycled wate,· su1iply." Presuming these facts are true, they indicate a reduced demand for
recycled water, further questioning t11e logic of expending adcllt.ional capital funds lo provlcje
redundant facllilles lo provlcJe recycled waier lo a cL1stc,mer wilt, reduced demand.
The Master Plan also Includes several other erroneous assumptions regarding the Gafner Plant
used as justification far Its conclusion that abandoning the Gafner Plant Is warranteJ. For
example, tho Master Plan assumed thal maximizing the Gafner Plant WoLilcl require replac0ment
of 27,000 feel or secondary anluent return pipeline fmn1 the Ehcina Wastewater Authority
("EWA'') Plant Tl1fs pipeline has significant remaining Lmeful llfe and, t11erefore, replacement is
hot needed.. The Master Plan Includes a cost to expand the Gafner Plant with membrane
filtration and reverse osmosis which are not necessary to 111eet current waste water discharge
requirements for ll1e Gafner Plant. As a ·resL1lt of the false assumptions aliove ancl others
included in the Master Plan, tt provides an inflated cost of several n,lllion dollars lo maximize
use of the Gainer Plant. (Sea Sec:llon 4.4.3)
Most importantly, !he Master Plan did not consider tl1e alternative of continuing use of the
existit 1(1 Gafner Plaill facilities under a renegotiated agreement to conllnue. a service that has
been in place for more than 50 years, an alternative that would not require any major capital
lnvesl111e11L For example, LWD staff has been meeting with Carlsbad staff since 2007 will\ goal
of extending the recycled waler agreement For services to (he La Costa south course. Although
the nego(ialions between LIND and Carlsbad never reached fruition, any conclusions in the
MND tl1at rely upon the price of recycled waler as a· basis for pursuin9 abandonment oi the
Gafner Plant are not supportable because Ille upfion of niodlfYing the price has never been
pu1sL1ed by CMWD,
The erroneous assumptions and errors in the Master Plan were can'ied forward into ils program
EIR and ultimately lnto the Project MND that Includes ES8, Tl1ese assumptions prev~ntecl
accurate conslderalion or environmental impacts because they resullecl in an erroneous Project
description, envlronment<1I selling and baseline.
Bioloqlcal anrJ Wetland hnpacfs
r11e MND fails to disclose and discuss slgriiflcant potenllal impacts to biological resources, parllcular1y
those associated with wc,uand habitats clue to, among other t111ng5, the following:
1. Tlie Notice Of Completion Farm fails to lctenUfy two waterways within two miles ol the propo~ecl
Project, including Baliqultos Lagoon, and Encinitas Creek. Segmeni ES8 is Within two miles of
H-6.
H-7.
H-8.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE Ill tS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
The comment states that the erroneous assumptions in the Master Plan were carried
forward to the 2012 Master Plans EtR and IS/MND. As noted in the responses provided
by the City (found in Attachment A to the RTC), the analysis conducted as part of the
2012 Master Plans EtR is based on accurate assumptions and therefore no revisions to
the IS/MND are warranted.
This comment introduces the comments that are addressed in responses to comments
H-14 through H-17. Refer to the responses to these comments.
This comment states that Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek are missing from the
Notice of Completion for the project and Figure 9 of the IS/MND. Due to the large
number of waterways in the project area, and limited space on the NOC form, only a
selection of waterways within two miles of the project components were listed on the
NOC. This form is intended to generally describe the project area; it does not need to
provide a comprehensive list of features. Waterways that are not listed on the NOC are
not precluded from analysis. All waterways that are potentially affected by the project
are fully analyzed in the tS/MND. However, in response to this comment, Figure 9 has
been updated to identify Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek.
ATK INS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-27 November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 73 of 223
H-8.
cont.
H-9.
H-10.
H-11.
H-12.
COMMENTS
these waterways. In adclll[on, Figure !:l doe~ r,ot Identify San Marcos Creek, whicl1 crosses El
'Camino Real. ancl Encinitas Creel(, which crosses La Costa Avenue. Attached please find a
Google ea1ih image wl1ich shows these creeks, which di-ain into Bal[quitos Lagoon. B0tl1 El
Camino Real and La Costa Avenue currently have b11dges \hat cross these creeks.
2. The MND a11alysis of f!ood plain isstlf.!$ IS inadequate. Page IS-5·1 iclentlries tile Mear\\le Dam as
being in close proximity to ES8, when in reality, this clarri Is far from the project site and poses
JitUe threat. We have attached a second Google image t11at identifies the location of the Mearkle
Dam in relation lo the ESB expansion site for reference. At t11e s~ma tln,e, lhe MND fails to
identify flomlplalnslfloodil1g lsSllP.S related to the SoL1th co(1rse of H1e l-a Costa golf course,
Which Is In lhe 100 year floodplain. The MND fails to disclose how lhe new ESB pipeline to the
soutl1 golf course wo.uld lh1pact the 100 ye;ir lloadp!aln and San M;ircos Creek. Page IS-50
Indicates th,~I there Is 110 potential to Impact fioodlng because the plr,~lines wotilcl be
underground, bl1t fails lo menlion that lhe pipes would ba altached to Iha bridges on ET Camino
Real ancl La Costa Canyon In some fashion, and no analysis has been conducted regarding 1110
potential for these bridge 1110dificalions to impact flooding. Furll1ern1ore, !here is nri Information
provided to describe how l':S8 construction would oocur within the floodplain of San Marcos
Creek, where the pipeline leaves El CaiTiina.Real.
3. The MND erroneously states that the Project Will occur within ''j;ublic rlgl1ts of way and
easements." However, the ES8 includes a segment a!pipeline on the La Costa Resort, where
the City does not currently have an easement, ancl as Indicated al;ove, tJ1ls area is wlt11ln l11e
floodplain of San Marcos Creel<. As a result, l11e MND ass1m1pt[o11 thal there will be no impacts
bec,;use aJI Project activity will be within existing /lghts of way ~nd easements Is not sllpporiecl
by evidence.
4. ThB MND fails to Identify potential Impacts to wetlanclE and riparl,m 1·,abitats that coul(I result
from the instailatiun or the ES8 pipeline extension. The MND indicates that trencl1less rnethods
will be usetl lo install the San .Marcos Creel\ crossing 111 lhe south La Costa golf cowse for ES8.
(Con,tructlon Schedule and Methods, p. IS-16.) However, tliere is no dlsc,1ssion of tl1e specific
rnelhod that would be used to cross the San Marcos Creek along El Camino Rc,al, and Encinitas
Creek-.along La Costa Avenue. As llldicated above, there are bridges crossing these creel\s
and each of these areas Large areas of salt marsh oci;upy the margins of ElaUquilos· Lagoon
ancl significant strands of fresh water marsh are present where lhe San Marcos anti Encinitas
Creeks enter the Lagoon, undP.r \lie bridges on El Cami110 Real and Encinitas-Creel1 ,ind lhe
potential for ,, Project 1o create direct significapt impacts dl.lling construction l1as not llee11
adeqLtalely assessed. No initlga\ion for these polenlral impacts has been provided.
Furthermore, the MND Indicates lhat tlie "Jack and bore"' \rencl1less method woulcl be used for
the crossing of the San Marcos Creiik in the South La Costa Golf Course. This i5 thri not .lhe
rnost cost effective or appropriate method for c1·osaing a creel1 with a pressurl:) pipeline.
Generally, Horizontal Dlrectiono1I Di'llling 111etl1ods are used. Without ·additional ,nfornrntion,
there Is no evlclf1nce in Ille recDrd to st1pport a finding that no potentially significant
environmental impacts to biological resources and Wetlancls would occllf.
Arnl1eoloqy Impacts
Tile MNO fails to Identify the potential for tlw proposed trenchless construcllon to impact arcl1eological
resources within the San Marcos Creek floodplain Page IS-37 indicates that there Is no potenUat ior
impacts to archeologb1I resources, because· all construction would ocour within public rlgl1ls of way.
However, a porliCJn of ESB includi;,s co11structlun within the San Marcos Creek floodplain, and the "jacl<
H-9.
H-10.
H-11.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that Maerkle Dam poses little threat to ES 8. This is consistent
with the IS/MND conclusion in Section 9j) that impacts related to inundation from
Maerkle Dam would be less than significant. This comment also states that the IS fails
to disclose how the ES8 pipeline would be'constructed within the floodplain of San
Marcos Creek, or impacts to the San Marcos Creek floodplain. The IS/MND states on
page IS-17 under Construction Schedule and Methods that trenchless construction
would be utilized to cross San Marcos Creek. The IS/MND correctly concludes in
Section 9h) that the underground pipelines would not impede or redirect flows within
a 100-year flood hazard area. Two portions of ES 8 pipeline would be Installed on the
sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real
and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. The
Construction Schedule and Methods discussion on page IS-17 has been revised to
clarify the description of the creek crossings. The proposed pipes would be attached
to the side of the bridges and would not result in any new interference with potential·
flood waters. Section 9h) of the IS/MND has been revised to clarify that the bridge
crossing would not impede or redirect flood flows. The revisions to the analysis made
in response to this comment do not Identify a new significant effect or mitigation and
do not constitute a substantial revision.
This comment states that the IS/MND does not disclose that a portion of ES 8 would
occur within the La Costa Resort, which is outside of the public right of way. The
description of ES 8 on page IS-8 under Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion
states that ES 8 would include an extension of pipelines across the South La Costa Golf
Course, which may be placed outside of the public right-of-way. The description of the
Project Location on page IS-1 referenced in this comment has been corrected to state
that a portion of the ES 8 would be located within the South La Costa Golf Course. The
statement on page IS-1 is not an impact statement and this revision does not affect the
environmental analysis of ES 8.
This comment states that the MND fails to identify potential impacts to wetland and
riparian habitats because there is no discussion of the specific method that would
be used to install the San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek crossing of ES 8. The
comment also states that no mitigation has been indentified for potential impacts.
As stated in the comment, the IS/MND describes construction of the San Marcos
Creek crossing on page IS-17. A trenchless construction method would be used, and
the jack-and-bore method is given as an example. The description on page IS-17 has
been updated to provide directional drilling as another potential method that may be
used. Either method would avoid direct impacts to habitat within San Marcos Creek.
Installation of pipeline on the existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real
would also avoid potential direct impacts.
Encinitas Creek currently flows through a culvert under La Costa Avenue. Pipeline
under La Costa Avenue would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil
beneath the road surface and above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert
would not be directly affected by construction.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012
Page RTC-28
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 74 of 223
COMMENTS
ATKINS
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
In response to this comment, page 15-17 of the 15/MND has been updated as follows to
specifically describe construction in the Encinitas Creek area:
Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase Ill project would
utilize typical construction equipment including dozers, rollers, dewatering
pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation
project components would utilize open trenching or trenchless (directional
drilling or jack-and-bore) methods. Open trench pipeline construction would
require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the
diameter of the pipe and its depth. Trenchless recycled water pipeline project
components include crossing Palomar Airport Road along Avenida Encinas (ES
2}, crossing the BNSF railroad tracks (ES 2), and crossing San Marcos Creek
in the South La Costa golf course (ES 8}. Encinitas Creek currently flows
through a culvert under Lo Costa Avenue. Pipeline under La Costa Avenue
(ES 8/ would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil beneath the
road surface and above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert would
not be directly affected by construction. Two portions ofES 8 pipeline would
be installed on the sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San
Marcos Creek on El Camino Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa
Golf Course over an unnamed creek. Attaching the pipelines to the bridges
would not require ground-disturbing construction activity. The installation
of pipelines within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require a temporary
Jane or roadway closure during construction activities. No grading would
be required for the proposed CWRF expansion because it would occur on the
existing building pads.
As discussed in Section 4c) ofthe IS checklist, the 15/MND concurs with the comment
that ES 8 is located within the immediate vicinity of wetland and riparian habitat.
Therefore, the 15/MND determined that potential indirect impacts to wetland and
riparian habitat would occur. As identified on pages 15-34 and 15-35, mitigation
measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF would be required to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Therefore, no revisions to the 15/MND are required in response to this
comment.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-29
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 75 of 223
H-12.
cont.
H-13.
H-14.
H-15.
COMMENTS
and bore" construction under Sa.n Marcos Creek has tl1e potential to impact archeological resources.
Tl1e MND falls to identify ancl mitigate for archeological impacts.
Public Ullllly Impacts
The MND fails lo acki1owledge the Impact of causing lhe abandonment of \110 Gafner Plant, a public
facility that is C\Jlrently operational. The Gafner Plant is repeatedly doscribecl as an inactive facility
creating the erro11eous belief that the prbposed abandonment Is an existing condition. (See Figures 2
and 9, pages 18-5 and IS-14, respectively) Tl1e reality is lt1at the proposed Preject. would result in
significant envlronme11tal effects to provide a utlltty service that is already being provideit by an existing
facility. The MND has fallecl to analyze the potential i111pact that woLlld result fro111 the toss of recycled
water capacity If the Garner Plcmt is forced to be abandoned.
D0111olttlo11 Impacts
The MND completely falls to address lho potential impacts that would be associate<! wlt11 den1otiU011
and replacement of the Gainer Plarit if ESB fames the shulc)own of the facility. Demolition of li1e Gafner
Plant could bet a potential outcome of t1·1t:i rirojecl t11at would have the potential to cause significant air
quallty, Lralfic ancl ol11er environmental impacts. such as 1·,azard waste associated with remov~11 or the
materials. The MND completely falls to aclclress the consequences of Its unilateral attempt lo cause the
atJandonrnent and demolition of the Gafner Plant.
Conclusion
LWD appreciates the CMWD's desire to expand Its recycled Wqter capacity for the region. However,
LWD lakes issue with lh.e CMWD's assumption that Iha Gainer Plant is 110 longer viable and
assumption that it makes sense from all e11viro111nenlal or public policy point of view to replace one
public facility with another. Surely, in loday's environment where public resources are scarce, there is
no justification for .:i public agency lo expencl pubHc funds to duplicate what is already in existence. For
these reasons. LWD respectfully submits t11at the best course of ac\1011 will be for the CMWD lo
abandon the ES8 segment of lhe Project. Olherwise, if the GMWD w1shes to pitrsue ES8, it mus1 first
prepare an environmental impact report that (I) fully discloses potential ilnpac!s associated wilh
construc1ion of new, reclL,ndan\ facilities and the destrL1ction of existing public facility. (ii) lctentllies
alternatives that could avoid significant impacts a11d (Iii) iuenlifies mitigaij·on measures that could reduce
impacts to a level below significance.
~st'tjgar~s, .. /)
11 . ~( . {) .)_(,,,., . ( -( )p aul J. El~~t1ee
General Manager
cc: File
H-12.
H-13.
H-14.
H-15.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the IS/MND fails to disclose the potential for trenchless
construction to impact archaeological resources within the San Marcos Creek
floodplain. Section Sb) of the IS checklist has been revised to clarify that construction
would take place within existing roadways or the developed South La Costa Golf
Course. Similar to the existing roadways, resources within the previously disturbed
golf course would have been removed or destroyed by the previous construction.
This includes impacts from trenchless construction in San Marcos Creek because this
segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The entire South
La Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf course, including
the existing creek alignment. The revisions to the analysis made in response to this
comment do not identify a new significant effect or mitigation and do not constitute a
substantial revision.
This comment states that the IS/MND does not address the potential abandonment of
the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant and does not consider operation of the plant as an
existing condition. The Phase Ill project does not propose to abandon the Gafner WRF.
None of the Phase Ill project components would necessitate demolition or any other
physical change to the plant. It is unclear what environmental effects would be caused
by implementation of the project that are not disclosed of in the IS/MND, as stated
by the commenter. This IS/MND addresses the potential environmental impacts that
would occur as a result providing the utilities proposed in the Phase Ill project. Figures
2 and 9 have been corrected; however, the operation or inactivity of the Gafner plant
does not affect the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
This comment states that the IS/MND fails to discuss the potential impacts of
demolition and replacement of the Gafner WRF. The Phase Ill project does not
propose the demolition or replacement of the Gafner WRF. None of the Phase Ill
project components would necessitate demolition or any other physical change to the
plant. Therefore, no change to the IS/MND is required in response to this comment.
This comment concludes the letter and summarizes the comments that are specifically
addressed in responses to comment H-1 through H-14. Refer to the response to these
comments.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-30
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 76 of 223
ATTACHMENT A
City of Carlsbad Utilities Department Letter
dated November 8, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 79 of 223
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
4 ,.
,~ :s. C I T ;,, fi f
. ~· CARLSBAD
UtiHUes Departn1ent
November 8, 2012
Paul Bushee, General Manager
Leucadia Wastewater District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, (EIA 12-02)
Dear Mr. Bushee:
www.ca rl sbadca.gov
The Utilities Department is responding to your comment letter dated October 19, 2012 regarding the subject
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, EIA 12-02. The City's Planning
Department is responding with a separate letter to your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Measures. Your comments are restated below followed by our response.
Comment 1, Page No. 1, First Paragraph: "Unlike other elements of the Project that would expand recycled
water into areas not currently served, ES8 is designed to replace an existing public service."
Response: Pipeline Segment ES8 will expand recycled water into areas that are currently not being
provided recycled water service from CMWD's recycled water distribution system. The pipeline ES8 will
be designed to extend the CMWD distribution system to the following irrigation use site locations:
• La Costa South Golf Course
• La Costa Hotel and Resort, which currently has a large grass landscaped entry, and other
landscaped areas surrounding the buildings and grounds that would be converted from potable
water to recycled water.
• Numerous irrigation meters located along El Camino Real, including street median and parkway
areas.
• Various homeowner associations which have maintenance responsibilities for community based
1. landscaping. Some sites have already been approved for recycled water use by the County and
CMWD, and therefore, the irrigation demand will be converted from potable water to recycled
water immediately once the pipeline is constructed.
• Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), which has submitted a letter indicating their
interest in the potential purchase of recycled water from CMWD for the purpose of supplying
OMWD's irrigation customers. OMWD staff has met with the City staff to review the Pipeline ES8
alignment and construction schedule. We are aware that OMWD has begun design work for the
expansion of their recycled water pipeline infrastructure in its northwest quadrant from a supply
so urce located in El Camino Real.
• Landscape irrigation to the commercial center at the intersection of La Costa Bou levard and El
Camino Real.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-33
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 80 of 223
2.
3.
4.
Nov.8,2012
Page 2
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Comment 2, Page No. 1, Second Paragraph: "The effect of ES8 would be to terminate the Gafner Plant as the
dedicated source of recycled water to the south golf course and cause abandonment of the facility, which has
no other customer for recycled water."
Response: The effect of CMWD's ES8 pipeline within El Camino Real is not to terminate the Gafner Plant.
CMWD currently supplies recycled water to the La Costa North Golf Course via its pipeline connection
along Poinsettia Lane. CMWD also retails recycled water to the South Golf Course through the supply
connection from the Gafner Plant. The LWD does have options for sale of recycled water to other
agencies, and we have noted that State and Federal funding is being pursued by LWD for that purpose. In
addition, at meetings of the North County Recycled Water Group, LWD has made several comments that
they are in discussions with other agencies to deliver recycled water south of CMWD.
The ES8 pipeline has been sized to receive recycled water from the Gafner Plant as well, provided LWD
upgrades their existing effluent pump station at the Gafner Plant to provide the required flow rates and
water pressure for CMWD's use within its distribution pipeline system, and a new agreement for
purchase of recycled water is successfully negotiated between CMWD and LWD.
Comment 3, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "The MND fails to address the physical impacts associated with
shutting down the Gafner Plant and new impacts that would result from construction of duplicate
replacement facilities across a private resort, golf course and regional waterway."
Response: Shutting down the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase Ill
Recycled Water Project; and therefore, no discussion is required in the MND. The pipeline ES8 is also not
a duplicate supply, refer to response to Comment 1. The MND does provide detail, {Section 4 Biological
Resources), on impacts due to the construction of a new pipeline (ES8).
Comment 4, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "Instead, the MND erroneously concludes that the decision to
abandon the Gafner Plant has already been made and that construction of the new pipeline will not cause
any environmental impacts because it will occur within existing roadways."
Response: The project description in the MND is now modified to delete references to abandoning the
Gafner Plant and provide a more detail description of the alignment for Pipeline Segment ES8 (refer to
Response to Comment 2). With regard to Pipeline ES8, the MND does provide detail, (Section 4 Biological
Resources), of impacts due to the construction a new pipeline.
Comment 5, Page 1, Third Paragraph: "LWWD submits that construction of a new pipeline to duplicate the
services of an existing public facility is not a wise expenditure of public funds."
Response: Constructing Pipeline ES8 will not duplicate services provided to CMWD's irrigation customers,
refer to response to Comment 1. Pipeline ES8 is a wise investment of public funds as it will lower the
expenditure of public funds related to purchasing recycled water from the Gafner Plant. The effective
recycled water rate to CMWD from the Gafner Plant supply is approximately $2,000/AF, which is
5. significantly higher than the cost from other sources. Discussions with LWD indicate a potential
willingness to change the terms to reduce this unit cost, but the stated cost to date is still significant ly
higher than CMWD's other sources. In addition, the existing Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility (CWRF)
in combination with Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) has sufficient capacity that can be
utilized to supply recycled water to the La Costa South Golf Course as well as the other use sites located
along the alignment of Pipeline ES8 at substantially lower cost and the recycled water has sufficient
pressure to be used in the golf course irrigation system without additional pumping by the golf course
operations. An economic analysis was performed to confirm that CMWD will be able to offset the
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND [EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-34
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 81 of 223
5.
cont.
6.
Nov. 8, 2012
Page 3
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
construction cost for Pipeline Segment ES8 within a few years based on the cost savings from utilizing the
other sources of recycled water available to CMWD, and the increased recycled water demand from
CMWD customer use sites along the alignment of pipeline ES8 will further assist in lowering cost to
CMWD's system through economy of scale.
Comment 6, Page 1, Third Paragraph: "if the CMWD wishes to pursue this course of action, it must first
prepare and environmental impact report ("EIR") that fully discloses and considers all environmental impacts
related to construction of new, redundant facilities and the resulting physical shut-down of an existing plant."
Response: CMWD has met all CEQA requirements by preparing a Project level Program Environmental
Impact Report for the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan that includes Pipeline Segment ES8 as well as a
draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase Ill recycled water project. Abandoning the existing
Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase Ill Project or the 2012 Recycled Water Master
Plan. The project description in the MND is modified to make this clear, refer to response to Comment 2.
Figure 9 in the MND is modified to show that the Gafner Plant is an existing facility.
Pipeline ES8 is not a redundant facility as noted in response to Comment 1. This pipeline could also
connect directly to the existing pipeline from the Gafner Plant to supply recycled water to CMWD's
distribution pipeline system.
Comment 7, Page No. 2 Project Description first paragraph: "The Project description of the ES8 segment does
not describe the ultimate purpose of the ES8 Project element, which is to replace and cause abandonment of
the Gafner Plant. Instead, the MND erroneously identifies the Gafner Plant as an inactive facility (See, e.g.,
Figure 9.)."
Response: Abandoning the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the proposed Phase Ill
Recycled Water Project. The ultimate purpose of expanding the recycled water distribution system is to
reduce CMWD's demand on the imported water supply, and provide a more reliable water supply to
7. irrigation customers through implementation of cost effective improvements. The project description in
the MND has been modified to make this clear, refer to response to Comment 2.
8.
The purpose of pipeline ES8 is not to replace and cause abandonment for the Gafner Plant. The new
pipeline ES8 has been sized for additional recycled water deliveries to numerous user site locations along
its alignment, and to OMWD. In addition, it can be used to obtain recycled water from the Gafner Plant if
LWD upgrades the existing plant effluent pump station at the Gafner Plant, and a new or amended
agreement can be reached between CMWD and LWD on supplying recycled water from the Gafner Plant.
Figure 9 in the MND is now modified to show that the Gafner Plant is an existing facility.
Comment 8, Page 2, "CMWD staff has stated that the aging nature of the Gafner WRP has led to number of
operational issues. Gafner WRP has frequent start ups and downs that most likely exacerbate the operational
issues that CMWD currently pays to resolve."
Response: The City's Water Operations Staff monitors the use of both potable water and recycled water
used at the South Golf Course. There have been periods of time when a large increase in the potable
water use and decreased recycled water use has occurred as a result of the Gafner Plant operation not
being sufficient or timely to meet the demand at the South Golf Course. Reference is made to LWD's
letter to Steve Plyler of Water Operations, dated September 3, 2008, which states "operational issues
(adequate chlorine concentration time and turbidity) prevented the delivery of recycled water." These
operational issues persisted from March 14th through April 18th_,, Our intent was not to highlight actual
operational or water quality issues of the Gafner Plant which can be obtained from the Regional Water
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-35
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 82 of 223
8.
cont.
9.
Nov.8,2012
Page4
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Quality Control Board records, but rather, to indicate that the historic delivery to the La Costa South Golf
Course has encountered operational issues in the actual quantity and timely delivery of recycled water to
CMWD's customer as stated in a letter prepared by LWD.
The golf course staff has indicated that they do not take recycled water on a daily basis from the Gafner
Plant supply due to changes in the weather and available on site storage in their storage pond. LWD has
indicated that starting the Gafner Plant up and shutting it down with the short notice provided by the
South Golf Course operator does create operational issues. By implementing Pipeline ES8, the south golf
course flows would be accommodated by CMWD's other two supply sources and storage; and therefore,
would not require start up or shut down of treatment facilities based on the South Golf Course
fluctuating irrigation demands.
CMWD records indicate that LWD payments or credits to CMWD have been made to CMWD for
operational issues for the following years: 2008 -$13,763; 2009-$16,371; 2011 -$12,114.
Comment 9, Page 2: "The Gafner WRP is not optimally utilized since the south course demand is far less than
the minimum amount of recycled water that CMWD is required to purchase from LWWD. To further
compound the problem, the La Costa Resort & Spa further reduces recycled water demand to its south golf
course by blending Gafner RWP effluent with potable water to decrease TDS concentrations for irrigation on
golf course tees and putting greens."
Response: The La Costa South Golf Course operations staff currently utilizes recycled water from of the
Gafner Plant effluent. The grass grown on the tees and greens is a hybrid turf that is cut short creating
stress on the grass. The TDS concentration from the Recycled Water creates additional stress with
unsatisfactory conditions for use on the tees and greens. La Costa Operations staff recently upgrading its
golf course irrigation system on the North Golf Course so it can irrigate the tees and greens with potable
water separately from the fairways and other landscaped areas. La Costa Resort plans to upgrade the
South Golf Course in the near future including irrigating the tees and greens with potable water
separately from the fairways and other landscaped areas. Their irrigation system will be similar to the
newer golf courses in Carlsbad such as Aviara Golf Course, and the Crossings Golf Course, and result in a
more efficient use of recycled water and potable water. This change will lower their operating cost on
the South Golf Course. The changes being made will reduce the amount of recycled water being used on
the South Golf Course which is directly related to taking turf out. CMWD's recycled water policy
mandates recycled water use to the maximum practical and cost effective extent, but allows site owners
to choose specific use areas on their sites meeting all State requirements for appropriate use.
CMWD's Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility does have the ability to lower TDS through the use of its
reverse osmosis process as well. Carlsbad utilizes micro filtration with Reverse Osmosis which the Gafner
Plant does not currently incorporate.
Comment 10, Page 2: "The La-Costa Resort & Spa in 2010 indicated that they are planning on significant
changes, which include reducing the amount of irrigated turf, and piping potable water to the greens and
tees. These changes will further reduce their irrigation demand on the recycled water supply."
lO. Response: The changes being made by the La Costa Resort operations will actually result in a more
efficient use of available recycled water supplies, which is directly related to removing the amount of turf
out of irrigation. There is no incentive by CMWD to have its customers use more recycled water than
they require for their landscaping. We applaud any efficiency improvements made by our customers, and
will not discourage that practice. Efficiency improvements have been made by other CMWD customers
and are resulting in operational savings for CMWD with its recycled water distribution system.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-36
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 83 of 223
11.
12.
Nov.8,2012
Page 5
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Comment 11, Page 2: "The Master Plan assumed that max1m1zing the Gafner Plant would require
replacement of 27,000 feet of secondary affluent pipeline from the Gafner Plant. The Master Plan includes a
cost to expand the Gafner Plant with membrane filtration and reverse osmosis which are not necessary to
meet current discharge requirements for the Gafner Plant. As a result of the false assumptions above and
others included in the Master Plan, it provides an inflated cost of several million dollars to maximize use of
the Gafner Plant."
Response: In accordance with LWD's Asset Management Plan, dated June 11, 2008 prepared by Dexter
Wilson Engineering, Inc., replacement funding was clearly noted for the secondary effluent pump station
and force main utilized in supplying secondary treated water to the Gafner Plant. The total replacement
amount listed in LWD's Asset Management Plan was $15,140,000 with approximately $6 million
identified to be required between the years 2011 through 2015.
If the Gafner Plant is expanded and used to serve new CMWD customers, more stringent regulations
from other groundwater basins will also apply such as iron, manganese, and TDS, which is presently not
addressed in the discharge order for the Gafner Plant. Water quality could therefore be a potential issue
when utilizing the Gafner Plant supply source within the CMWD recycled water distribution system which
needs to be considered. Planning level estimates were utilized for six supply alternative analyses in the
2012 RWMP. Alternative No. 3 consisting of maximizing the Gafner WRP was more than three times
more expensive than any other alternative ava ilab le to CMWD's distribution system.
Comment 12, Page 2, "Most importantly, the Master Plan did not consider the alternative of continuing use
of the existing Gafner Plant facilities under a renegotiated agreement to continue a service that has been in
place for more than 50 years, an alternative that would not require any major capital investment."
Response: The Master Plan included six Recycled Water Supply Alternatives. Four of the alternatives
include the use of the Gafner Plant under an extension of the current agreement. These four alternatives
did not include any capital investment in the Gafner Plant; however, since the proposed Phase Il l
Recycled Water Project demand is greater than existing available suppl ies, major capital investments by
CMWD is required to secure new recycled water supplies for all alternatives. The recommended supply
alternative, maximizes the efficient use of CMWD's CWRF, and the MWRF as presented in the Recycled
Water Master Plan which was based on the lowest cost recycled water supply to CMWD.
We also want to clarify, that the current agreement between LWD and CMWD dated March 25, 1991, is
not fifty years. We provided notice on June 5, 2012 to provide a one year notice to terminate the
agreement. The written notice· was based on an economic analysis of continuing to use the Gafner Plant
compared to the other recycled water sources available to CMWD.
City of Carlsbad and LWD staff had several meetings over the past four years discussing the terms of a
replacement or amended agreement primarily in relation to the purchase cost and the ability for LWD to
meet pressure and supply requirements for de livery into CMWD's distribution system. Some of these
meetings are noted in the October 14, 2009 letter submitted by LWD to Mark Stone of CMWD, where
LWD included a proposal to modify terms of the current agreement for example. Letters from LWD as
well as discussions at meetings with LWD were referenced in reviewing the facilities required to expand
CMWD's recycled water distribution system in its 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan and also the various
source of supply alternatives available to CMWD presently.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-37
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 84 of 223
Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study
Case Number:
Project Title:
Lead Agency:
Contact Person:
Project Location:
EIA 12-02
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Barbara Kennedy (760) 602-4626
The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in the County of San,
Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) service area (see Figure 1). A small portion
of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) is located in the City of Vista and a small portion (Expansion Segment 5) is
located in the City of Oceanside. The project will occur within public rights-of-way (ROW) and easements, with the
exception of a portion of ES 8 that would extend across La Costa Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual
components are shown in Figure 2. The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at
the existing CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, 92011. Expansion Segment lA (ES lA) is located
in existing roadways south of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, and along Camino Via Roble. Expansion
Segment 2 (ES 2) is located south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, along the Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) railroad track and Avenida Encinas. Expansion Segment 4A (ES 4A) is located in South
Melrose Avenue in the City of Vista, just east of the boundary of Carlsbad and Vista. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5)
north and south of State Route 78 along the Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street.
Expansion Segment 7 (ES 7) is located south of State Route 78, west of College Avenue, and north east of Carlsbad
Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El Camino Real between Aviara and La Costa Avenue.
Expansion Segment 9 (ES 9) is located north of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, east of Highway 101, and
south of Poinsettia Avenue. Expansion Segment 18 (ES 18) is located southwest of Maerkle Reservoir along Palmer
Way and Impala Drive.
Project Applicant/Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
General Plan Designation:
Public ROW -Not Applicable
Public Utilities (U)
Zoning:
Public ROW -Not Applicable
Public Utility (P-U)
Brief Description of Project:
Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and
Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase Ill, would expand CMWD's recycled water system to
the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project
components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase Ill project would expand the treatment
capacity (from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility by installing additional filtration
units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or
construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-1
Soplombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 86 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-INITIAL STUDY
irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area
(see Figure 2).
Existing Land Use and Setting:
See Table 1. The Phase Ill project would be constructed within the CWRF, within existing and planned roadway
ROW, the South La Costa Go lf Course, and within the BNSF railroad right of way.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
See Table 1. Existing land uses in the project vicinity include residences, commercial centers, industrial and business
parks, and utility infrastructure.
Acronyms:
AB Assembly Bill HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons
afy acre feet per year HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
BMP Best Management Practice HMP Habitat Management Plan
BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway HPMR Habitat Preservation and Management
CARB California Air Resources Board Requirements
CDF California Department of Forestry and MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Fire Protection MG million gallon
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
CDP Coastal Development Permit N20 Nitrous Oxide
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
CH4 Methane NOx Nitrogen oxides
CIPs Capital Improvement Projects OMWD Olivenhain Municipal Water District
CMP Congestion Management Program PF Cs Perfluorocarbons
CMWD Carlsbad Municipal Water District PM10 Respirable particulate matter
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database PM2.s Fine particulate matter
CNPS California Native Plant Society RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
co Carbon Monoxide ROW right(s)-of-way
CO2 Carbon Dioxide RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan
C02e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
CWRF Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility SAN DAG San Diego Association of Governments
DEH County of San Diego Department of SDAB San Diego Air Basin
Environmental Health SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
DOC Department of Conservation SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SIP State Implementation Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report SW PPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
ES Expansion Segment USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility VID Vista Irrigation District
FHWA Federal Highway Administration voe Volatile organic compounds
VWD Vallecitos Water District
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-2
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 87 of 223
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Description/Environmental Setting
Project Description
CMWD provides potable water and recycled water within a portion of the City located approximately 35 miles north
of downtown San Diego. As shown in Figure 1, CMWD's service area covers most of the City's boundary. CMWD is a
subsidiary district of the City of Carlsbad. The mayor and City Council are CMWD's governing board. The project
study area is the service area of CMWD as well as some of the surrounding areas of three neighboring agencies.
These neighboring agencies are the City of Oceanside, Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), and Vista
Irrigation District (VID).
The CMWD has been providing recycled water to the city since 1991. The CMWD 2012 RWMP guides the continued
development of the CMWD recycled water system. Currently, CMWD's existing recycled water system extends to all
parts of the CMWD service area except the upper portion of the northwest quadrant and the portion of the
Vallecitos Water District (VWD) service area within the Carlsbad city limits. The proposed project is the
implementation of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) identified in the 2012 RWMP to expand recycled water
service to the northwest quadrant of the CMWD service area, and three water service providers including the City of
Oceanside, OMWD, and VID. The CIP projects addressed in this document will collectively be referred to as the
project.
Implementation of the 2012 RWMP is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build-
out. Phases I and II were previously implemented as part of a previous RWMP program. It is anticipated that an
additional 3,135 acre feet per year (afy), or 2.8 million gallons per day, of recycled water would be required to serve
demand at the completion of Phase Ill (Year 2020). The anticipated demand from inside the CMWD service area in
1,985 afy, and 1,150 afy would be needed by the neighboring agencies. The project would implement the Phase Ill
facility improvements to meet the additional demand.
Phase Ill includes the most feasible alignments for expansion of the recycled water system. This would expand
CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad, as well as fill in existing service areas, and begin initial
expansion into the neighboring agencies through wholesale service to VID for the Shadowridge Golf Course, OMWD
for irrigation use at schools and common areas in the Village Park area of Encinitas, and Oceanside at the El Camino
Country Club Golf Course, Ocean Hills Golf Course, and MiraCosta College. The Phase Ill project would be completed
between 2014 and 2020. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Phase Ill project
consists of the following facility improvements.
Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion
The CWRF is owned by CMWD; howev,er, the Encina Wastewater Authority has been contracted to provide
operation and maintenance of the CWRF through a memorandum of understanding dated May 1, 2005. CWRF
currently operates as a tertiary treatment plant, treating secondary effluent from the Encina Water Pollution Control
Facility (EWPCF), located adjacent to the CWRF. To meet future demand, the RWMP recommends the expansion of
CWRF, maintaining current supply from the Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility, and abandoning discontinuing
CMWD use of the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. The Phase Ill expansion of the CWRF would increase
capacity by installing additional filtration units and a chlorine contact basin within the existing facility, as shown on
Figure 3. The expansion would increase capacity by an additional 4.0 mgd, for a total capacity of 8.0 mgd, to meet
Phase Ill demand and replace the 0.6 mgd of discontinued capacity from the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. The
CWRF already has approximately 14.4 mgd of pumping capacity and no additional pumps would be installed as part
of the project.
Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion
The Phase Ill project would include the installation of new pipelines, conversion of existing potable water facilities to
recycled water use, and retrofitting landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water and provide supply to
proposed land development projects. The recycled water expansion segments that would require new pipeline are
described below. A total of be 96,600 linear feet of pipeline is proposed for the Phase Ill expansion segments.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-3
~optember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 88 of 223
I ATKINS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-6
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 91 of 223
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The future recycled water customers that would be added to the recycled water system as part of Phase Ill are
located adjacent to existing facilities and would require conversion or retrofitting of existing facilities. These
customers would not require any new pipeline to connect to the recycled water system.
Expansion Segment 1 consists of a total of 9,400 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a system demand of
99 afy. As shown in Figure 4, ES 1 is located in the center of CMWD's service area in Zone 550 and consists of
connecting customers in the business park surrounding Palomar Airport Road. ES 1 would be located within existing
roads and CMWD ROW.
Expansion Segment 2 consists of a total of 17,500 feet of 8-inch to 18-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate
system demand of 782 afy. This segment in Zone 384 would extend the recycled water system north from CWRF
along Avenida Encinas to the new power plant and across the lagoon, as shown in Figure 5.
Expansion Segment 4A would evaluate the potential of serving demands within the VID and provide wholesale
Service to VID at Shadowridge Water Reclamation Plant and the Ocean Hills Golf Course in Oceanside. No new
pipelines would be installed for this project component by CMWD. As shown in Figure 6, Expansion Area 4A would
make use of an existing 12-inch diameter pipeline in Melrose Avenue that would connect to an existing pipeline in
Faraday Avenue in the 660 Zone. Expansion Area 4A would serve the Shadowridge Golf Course, which has an
estimated demand of 300 afy, and the Ocean Hills Golf Course with a demand of 180 afy.
Expansion Segment 5 consists of 46,100 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand
of 454 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 384, extending the recycled water distribution system north along
El Camino Real to serve the second phase of the Robertson Ranch development, several existing homeowners
associations, and existing landscape irrigation. This segment also includes the El Camino Country Club within the city
of Oceanside with a demand of 180 afy. ES 5 would be located within existing roads in CMWD and City of Oceanside
ROW, as shown in Figure 7.
Expansion Segment 7 consists of 7,000 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of
114 afy. ES 7 would provide service to the proposed Quarry Creek development, a homeowners association, and
existing school landscape in Zone 580 and MiraCosta College in Oceanside. A pressure regulator would potentially be
required for this segment. However, if needed, this would be constructed on site as part of the Quarry Creek
development and paid for by the developer. Need for the pressure regulator would be determined as part of design
for the Quarry Creek development and considered in the environmental analysis for the Quarry Creek project.
Therefore, the pressure regulator is not considered part of the proposed Phase Ill project. As shown in Figure 8, the
anticipated alignment for ES 7 is along Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and
Carlsbad Village Drive.
Expansion Segment 8 consists of 9,900 feet of 6-inch to 12-inch diameter pipeline to serve La Costa Resort and Spa
and OMWD demands with an ultimate system demand of 420 afy. This includes 2,800 feet of pipeline to feed the
South La Costa golf course, which would connect Leucadia Wastewater District to the CMWD recycled water system.
CMWD could purchase or lease an existing pipeline directly from Leucadia Wastewater District to serve the South La
Costa golf course; however, this analysis assumes that a new pipeline will be built. This segment would be a part of
Zone 384. As shown in Figure 9, Expansion Segment 8 consists of a pipeline along El Camino Real that would connect
CMWD's recycled water system to OMWD and existing landscape irrigation at La Costa Resort and Spa. ES 8 would
be located within existing roads and CMWD ROW, with the exception of the pipeline to the South La Costa golf
course, which may be placed outside of the existing public ROW.
Expansion Segment 9 consists of 4,800 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of
91 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 318, expanding the recycled water system south to the San Pacifico
Homeowners Association and various existing landscape irrigation and potential development areas, as shown in
Figure 10. A portion of this alignment extends Zone 318 south along Avenida Encinas to the Poinsettia Village
shopping center and the Lake Shore Garden mobile home park.
Expansion Segment 18 consists of 1,900 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a Phase Ill system demand of
25 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 550, connecting several existing commercial irrigation demands north
of Faraday Avenue to the existing recycled water distribution system. ES 18 would be located within existing roads in
CMWD ROW, as shown in Figure 11.
I ATKIN S CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-8
lioptombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 93 of 223
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Storage
Additional recycled water storage is proposed to be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site. This includes either
constructing a new 1.5 million gallon (MG) steel tank adjacent to the existing two tanks or relocating an existing 1.5
MG steel tank to the site. The location of the proposed tank site is shown in Figure 12. Construction would include
an at-grade concrete ring wall to support the 1.5 MG tank. The site is already graded with an existing paved access
road.
Construction Schedule and Methods
The Phase Ill project would be completed between 2014 and 2020. Based on the 2012 RWMP, construction of the
CWRF expansion, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would begin as early as 2014. ES 1 and ES 2 would begin
construction as early as 2015. ES 4A would also be completed in 2015, but would not require any heavy construction
activities. The CWRF expansion and Twin D tank construction or relocation would each take approximately 18
months to complete. Pipelines would be installed at a rate of 80 feet to 100 feet per day; therefore, pipeline project
components would take between two months (ES 9) and 29 months (ES 5) to complete.
Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase Ill project would utilize typical construction equipment
including dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation project
components would utilize open trenching or trench less (directional drilling or jack-and-bore) methods. Open trench
pipeline construction would require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the diameter of
the pipe and its depth. Trenchless recycled water pipeline project components include crossing Palomar Airport
Road along Avenida Encinas (ES 2), crossing the BNSF railroad tracks (ES 2), and crossing San Marcos Creek in the
South La Costa golf course (ES 8). Encinitas Creek currently flows through a culvert under La Costa Avenue. Pipeline
under La Costa Avenue (ES 8) would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil beneath the road surface and
above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert would not be directly affected by construction. Two portions of
ES 8 pipeline would be installed on the sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El
Camino Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. Attaching the
pipelines to the bridges would not require ground-disturbing construction activity. The installation of pipelines
within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require a temporary lane or roadway closure during construction
activities. No grading would be required for the proposed CWRF expansion because it would occur on the existing
building pads.
Permits Required
The approval of the Phase Ill project requires the affirmative vote of the CMWD Board of Directors. However,
implementation of the individual facilities that comprise the proposed project may require that the CMWD obtain
approval, permits, licenses, certifications or other entitlements from various federal, state, and local agencies, as
shown in Table 1 in Appendix A.
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The environmental setting and land uses surrounding each of the project components are provided in Table 1.
Regulatory Compliance
Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to various
environmental topics. Applicable regulations are listed in Appendix A.
Project Design and Construction Measures
The CMWD has incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design
that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The project design features and
construction measures are provided in Appendix A.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-17
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 102 of 223
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Table 1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Project
Component Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Carlsbad Water The expansion would be located within the existing CWRF facility. The proposed chlorine contact basin and
Recycling granular media filtration equipment would be located within a new concrete structure. The two concrete
Facility tanks that contain the treatment system would be surrounded by other CWRF facilities to the south, east, and
Expansion west, and the EWPCF to the north. Existing vegetation within the CWRF facility site surrounding the structures
consists of non-native and/or ornamental species.
Expansion Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Corte del Noga[, Corte de Abeta, Yarrow
Segment 1 Drive, Carta de la Pina, Cosmos Court, Corte del Cedro, and Las Palmas Drive. These roadways are within an
existing business park including office and light industrial development.
Pipelines would be located within the BNSF railroad ROW and the following existing roadways: Cannon Road,
Expansion Avenida Encinas, Palomar Airport Road, and Oceanview Drive. Land uses along the rail corridor include the
Segment 2 new power plant. Land uses along Avenida Encinas include power plant infrastructure, hotels, office and
industrial parks, open space, the railroad track, and the CWRF. Land uses along Palomar Airport Road include
open space and a hotel. Land uses along Oceanview Drive include mobile home residences.
Expansion The existing pipeline is located within South Melrose Drive in the city of Vista. Land uses along this roadway
Segment 4A include open space, industrial parks, commercial land use, single-family residences, and the Shadowridge
Country Club and golf course.
Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Vista Way, Haymar Drive, El Camino Real,
Marron Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, Pointe Avenue, Tamarack Avenue, Palisades Drive, High Ridge Drive,
Telescope Avenue, Pontiac Drive, Regent Road, Southampton Road, Chancery Court, Chelsea Court, Salisbury
Court, Dorchester Place, Carnaby Court, Buckingham Lane, Kelly Drive, and Park Drive. Land uses along Vista
Way include hotels and visitor serving commercial uses, El Camino Country Club and golf course, and medical
offices. Land uses along Haymar Drive include open space, a driving range, and commercial land uses. Land
uses along El Camino Real include commercial and entertainment land uses, multi-family and single-family
Expansion residences, medical offices, and open space. Land uses along Marron Road include commercial land use, multi-
Segment 5 family residences, Westfield Plaza mall, and open space. Land uses along Carlsbad Village Drive include multi-
family and single-family residences. Pointe Avenue and Palisades Drive are located in a single family residential
neighborhood north of Tamarack Avenue. Land uses along Tamarack Avenue include open space and single-
family residences. High Ridge Drive and Telescope Avenue are located in a single-family residential
development south of Tamarack Avenue, and Regent Road, Southampton Road, Chancery Court, Chelsea
Court, Salisbury Court, Dorchester Place, Carnaby Court, and Buckingham Lane are located in a single-family
residential neighborhood east of El Camino Real. Land uses along Kelly Drive include single-family residences,
open space, Kelly Elementary School, and Laguna Riviera City Park. Land uses along Park Drive include open
space and Laguna Riviera City Park.
Expansion Pipeline would be installed within the following existing roadways within a single-family residential
Segment 7 neighborhood: Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village
Drive.
Portions of ES 8 would be installed within the following existing roadways: La Costa Avenue and El Camino
Expansion Real. Land uses along these roadways include open space, commercial development, single-family and multi-
Segment 8 family residential development, and the La Costa Resort and golf course. The remaining portion of the
expansion segment would traverse La Costa golf course property from El Camino Real to the existing golf
course lake.
Pipeline would be installed in several existing roadways: Avenida Encinas, Ponto Drive, and Navigator Circle.
Expansion Land uses along Avenida Encinas include the Lake Shore Garden mobile home residential neighborhood and
Segment 9 the Poinsettia Village commercial development. Open space is located on either side of Ponto Drive.
Navigator Circle is located in a single-family residential neighborhood.
' Expansion Pipeline would be installed in the existing Palmer Way and Impala Drive roadway ROW. These roadways are
Segment 18 located in an existing business park including office and light industrial uses.
The new or relocated steel tank would be located on a currently graded site that contains two existing steel
1.5 MG Steel tanks for recycled water storage. The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline at the site. Existing
Tank vegetation adjacent to the steel tank site consists of non-native and/or ornamental species. The storage tank
site is surrounded by single-family residential development.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-19
Seplember 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 104 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the
City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This
checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR, Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an
information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the
one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures
has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
• The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-lnitial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document
have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the
significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of
its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
• If there is one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there is
mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures
are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that
reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the
significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do
not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-lnitial Study analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of
a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-21
September 15', 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 106 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions.
Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined
significant. As discussed above in the Project Description, several potential customers located adjacent to existing
recycled water facilities would be connected to the recycled water system. No physical environmental changes
would occur as a result of these connections; therefore, they are not included in the analysis below.
This document incorporates by reference the analysis contained in the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer
Master Plan and CMWD Water and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006) (2012
Master Plans EIR), which was released for public review in July 2012. The 2012 Master Plans EIR addresses the
potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plan CIP Projects, including the CWRF expansion and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9,
and 18. This Initial Study also uses the information included in the previous Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
prepared for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase II Project in December, 1999, which included
construction of the CWRF. Each of these prior certified environmental documents is herein incorporated by
reference. This EIA contains information summarized from these prior documents to facilitate the reader's review of
this document where appropriate. All referenced documents are available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
The proposed ES 4A consists of using an existing pipeline to provide recycled water service to the Shadowridge golf
course. No new pipeline would be installed as part of this project component and no other construction activities
would be required. The 2012 Master Plans EIR assumed that 700 feet of pipeline would be installed as part of
ES 4A, but determined that installation would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts that
would require mitigation. ES 4A as proposed would not result in any physical environmental effects because no
construction would be required; therefore, consistent with the determination of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, ES 4A
would not result in any physical environmental impacts and is not included in the EIA below. The potential
environmental impacts of the CWRF expansion and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 18 are addressed in the
following EIA.
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D ~ D
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings D D ~ D
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or D D ~ D quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which D D ~ D would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Explanation:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed expansion segments are below-ground installations, and the CWRF
expansion consists of interior improvements to an existing facility. Following construction, the project would have
no visual impact. The CWRF expansion and construction or relocation of the tank at the Twin D tank site would not
result in te_mporary construction impacts because the construction area would be within the CMWD property,
isolated from public view. However, temporary visual impacts would occur from construction of the expansion
segments due to unsightly trenching and stockpiling in public roadways, and presence of heavy construction
equipment. Disturbance of ground cover, excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects 15/MND
Page 15-22
September 19. 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 107 of 223
ENVIRON MENTAL INITIAL STUDY
equipment would temporarily degrade the pre-existing visual character at the construction sites and their
surroundings. Short-term impacts associated with construction would be a substantial adverse change in existing
visual character. However, the CMWD has committed to the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential
effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase Ill project during construction activities, including
removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing setting, and restoring disturbed areas following
construction. Therefore, visual impacts would be minimized during construction activities and disturbed areas would
be re-vegetated or repaved to ensure that all disturbed areas of the construction site return to pre-existing visual
character conditions after completion of construction. Temporary construction impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no designated State Scenic highways in the project study area. However,
Interstate 5 is an eligible State Scenic highway and Carlsbad has its own scenic roadways program. Scenic roadways
listed in the Carlsbad General Plan in the proximity of the project include El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, La
Costa Avenue, Melrose Drive, College Boulevard, Cannon Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, Faraday Avenue, Interstate 5,
and Poinsettia Lane. The BNSF railroad line is also considered a scenic corridor. However, as discussed above under
question la), the proposed project would not result in any permanent visual impacts. Impacts would be less than
significant.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above under question la), the proposed project would not result in any
permanent visual impacts. Impacts related to existing visual character and quality would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed expansion segments are below-ground installations. The CWRF
expansion consists of a concrete structure, and the new steel storage tanks would be located on the same site as
two existing steel tanks. Similar to the existing tanks, the new tank would be painted with low-glare coatings so that
reflection is kept to a minimum. No new lighting or potential sources of glare are proposed. Construction would be
limited to daytime hours and would not require construction lighting. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Less Than Less Than Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant With Significant
Mitigation Impact No Impact
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
D
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-23
D D
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 108 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 4526)?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Explanation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Less Than Less Than
Significant With Significant
Mitigation Impact No Impact
D D ~
D D
D D
D D
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. There are only a limited number of areas within Carlsbad that include important farmlands as defined by
the California Department of Conservation. Carlsbad consists mainly of Urban and Built-Up Land along the western,
southern, and northwestern portions of the city, with large areas of "Other Land" interspersed throughout the
eastern and central portions (Dudek 2003). "Other Land" consists of land not included in any other mapping
category. Common examples include low density rural developments and brush or sensitive habitat areas not
suitable for agriculture. One small Williamson Act contract area is located within Carlsbad, east of Interstate 5 at
Palomar Airport Road (DOC 2009) and it not located in the vicinity of any project component. No agricultural uses
occur within the areas of the VID or Oceanside Water District adjacent to the proposed recycled water infrastructure
alignments in these jurisdictions (City of Vista 2011 and DOC 2008). The CWRF expansion and new storage tank
consist of improvements to existing facilities and would not result in any conversion of agricultural land to non-
agricultural use. The proposed pipelines would be located within existing roadways or developed areas and would
not affect any existing agricultural operations or preclude future agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. See response to question 2a). No impact to agricultural land would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)?
No Impact. The CMWD recycled water service area does not include any forest land or timberland zoned for
timberland production (CDF 2003). No forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production occurs within the
areas of the VID or Oceanside Water District where recycled water infrastructure alignments would be extended. No
impact to forest land or timberland would occur.
d) Resu lt in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. See response to question 2c). No impact to forest land would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. See response to questions 2a) and 2c). No impact to agricultural land or forest land would occur.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-24
goptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 109 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
level thresholds can be used to demonstrate whether a project's total emissions would result in a significant impact
to regional air quality.
Construction of the project would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions generated primarily from
construction equipment exhaust, earth disturbance, construction worker vehicle trips, and heavy duty truck trips.
The 2012 Master Plans EIR quantified the worst-case construction emissions that would result from simultaneous
implementation of the three master plans. The worst-case construction scenario included installation of 124,414
feet of pipeline (including approximately 63,480 linear feet for ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18), pump and lift station
removals and replacements, removal and relocation of a storage tank at the Twin D site, access road installations,
and the CWRF expansion project.
The worst-case analysis assumed that all projects would be constructed simultaneously and completed in seven
months. It was assumed that 890 linear feet of pipeline would be installed per day for all three Master Plan CIP
Programs. The 2012 Master Plans EIR included the worst-case construction scenario for the Phase Ill project that ES
5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, placement of a new tank at the Twin D site, and the CWRF expansion would all be under
construction in 2014. Construction of the Phase Ill RWMP pipeline projects were assumed to be installed at a rate of
80 feet to 100 feet per day. In reality, the project components would not all be constructed in 2014. The Phase Ill
project would be installed at a slower pace and over a longer period of time compared to the 2012 Master Plans EIR
assumptions, and would therefore result in reduced maximum daily emissions compared to the EIR assumptions.
The maximum daily emissions associated with the worst-case construction scenario are provided in Table 2. As
shown in Table 2, implementation of the Sewer, Water, and Recycled Master Plans simultaneously, including the
worst-case construction scenario for the Phase Ill project, would result in less than significant emissions of criteria
air pollutants during construction of the proposed CIP projects. The Phase Ill project would also implement the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Appendix A to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant
emissions during construction of Phase Ill project, including covering or applying soil stabilizer to unpaved surfaced,
restoring disturbed areas when construction is complete, using alternative sources of power when feasible, installing
air filters on construction engines, implementing a traffic control plan, locating staging areas away from residences,
and limiting truck idling. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant air pollutant emissions during
construction.
Table 2 Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction
Maximum Daily Emissions, pounds per day
Emission Source voe NO, co so, PM10(3J PM2.s (3)
Total Worst-Case Construction Scenario Emissions 17 94 63 0 66 18
Significance Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
(1) Includes hauling of imported and exported trench material
(2) Architectural coasting emissions assume that all architectural coatings would be low-VOC coatings. Based on estimated
interior and exterior surface area for each new reservoir, pump station, and lift station. Worker vehicle trips were
estimated by URBEMIS 2007.
l3l Estimates of particulate emissions take into account application of soil stabilizers to inactive areas during grading in
mandatory compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55.
voe= Volatile organic compounds; NO,= Nitrogen oxides; CO= carbon monoxide; SOx = Sulfur Oxides; PM 10= Respirable
particulate matter; PM 2.5 = Fine particulate matter
Source: URBEMIS 2007.
Following construction, the new pipelines would be passive and the CWRF expansion would not require any
equipment that would generate the criteria air pollutants, listed in Table 2. The underground pipelines would not
require regular maintenance. No additional maintenance trips would be required to the CWRF as a result of the
proposed expansion. Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips and not
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-26
Soptombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 111 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
result in a significant increase in criteria pollutant emissions from vehicle trips. Operation air pollutant emission
impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions,
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less than significant. An analysis of cumulative air quality impacts takes into consideration how a project, in
conjunction with cumulative projects, may impact the ambient air quality and expose sensitive receptors to criteria
air pollutants. San Diego County is designated as a basic non-attainment area for the federal ozone standard, and is
also a non-attainment area for the state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The County has not met the federal
and/or state standards for these pollutants; therefore, significant cumulative impacts to air quality for VOCs (ozone
precursor), NOx (ozone precursor), PM10, and PM2.5 currently exist. The greatest concern involving criteria air
pollutants is whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 and PM25, or exceed
screening level thresholds of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOx)-As discussed in Section 3 b), the project would not
generate operational air pollutant emissions; therefore, only the potential cumulative impacts associated with
construction-related air pollutant emissions are evaluated below.
The County of San Diego's Guidelines for Determining Significance provide guidance for assessing the impact of
cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants. According to these guidelines, a project would result in a cumulative
impact if the proposed project, alone or in combination with the construction of another cumulative project, would
exceed the significance thresholds listed in Table 2 during construction.
A localized pollutant concentration analysis is appropriate to the determination of the cumulative impacts of
construction emissions because pollutant emissions would disperse or settle out following construction and would
not contribute to long-term concentrations of emissions in the San Diego Basin. The geographic scope of the
cumulative analysis for the proposed project is area served by the CMWD, including the CMWD service area and
portions of the VID and Oceanside services areas where recycled water service would be extended. As shown in
Table 2, the worst-case simultaneous construction of the CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plans, including the worst-case construction of the Phase Ill project, would not exceed the
significance thresholds. The 2012 Master Plans EIR concluded that construction would not result in significant
cumulative impact because cumulative construction projects would not take place at the same time or in the same
location, and relatively short construction periods are anticipated for CIP projects. The proposed project
construction would be consistent with the construction assumptions in the 2012 Master Plans EIR. Therefore,
consistent with the conclusion of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in
a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact during construction.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than significant. None of the departments within the CMWD are listed within the 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots"
Program Report for San Diego County as an organization posing possible health risks to San Diego County with
regards to TACs. The proposed Phase Ill facilities are similar to existing pipelines, storage tanks, and CWRF
facilities and would not result in a new source ofTACs. As discussed under question 3b), the proposed Phase Ill
project would not result in a substantial net increase in vehicle trips, and would not contribute to severe traffic
congestion issues with the potential to create carbon monoxide "hotspots" (defined as areas where high
concentrations of carbon monoxide result from idling vehicles). Additionally, construction of the Phase Ill project
would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations, including diesel exhaust from construction equipment.
Therefore, while sensitive receptors (e.g., medical facilities and residences) exist along some Phase Ill pipelines,
construction activity would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would
be less than significant.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant. CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of
odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-27
~eptombor 19, 2012
November 14, 20 12
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 112 of 223
ENVIRONMENT AL INITIAL STUDY
treatment plants, landfills, solid waste recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations.
Construction activities are not a typical source of nuisance odors, although construction could result in minor
amounts of odorous compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust or evaporation of volatile
compounds within paint or other coatings. Additionally, construction equipment associated with the Phase Ill
project would be operating at various locations throughout the project area and would not take place all at once.
Odorous hydrocarbons emissions would dissipate beyond the emission sources and would only temporarily affect
receptors in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Construction-related operations would also be
temporary in nature and would cease at the completion of the installations. Therefore, odor impacts associated
with construction would be less than significant.
Based on CARB's list of common sources of odor complaints, recycled water projects do not typically result in a
source of nuisance odors associated with operation. The pipelines would be located underground and would
transport potable water. The storage tank would enclose potable water. The CWRF would continue to filter and
disinfects secondary treated wastewater, rather than raw sewage, and the proposed expansion would not result in
substantial odor impacts compared to existing conditions. Chemicals proposed for use in the treatment process
would be in enclosed containers and would not be vented to the atmosphere. Therefore, operation of the project
would not result in a significant odor impact.
4. Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not lirpited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-28
September 19, 2012
November 14, 20 12
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 113 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Explanation:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation. Information regarding biological resources that occur or have the potential to
occur within the project sites and immediate vicinity was obtained from a search of biological resources databases
and a review of pertinent literature, prior environmental documents, photographs, and aerial imagery. Due to the
fact that the project sites are restricted to existing disturbed and developed land, no site-specific biological surveys
were required to be conducted in support of the biological resources analysis. A summarized list of the primary
resources consulted for the preparation of the analysis is provided below under the Biological Resource Database
and Literature Review heading. The biological resources analysis included a thorough review of literature and
geospatial data pertaining to biological resources, including the California Natural Diversity Database, California
Native Plant Society Inventory, 2012 Master Plans EIR, and Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) mappi_ng data,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper, photographs, and aerial
imagery.
The Phase Ill project components have been specifically designed to be restricted entirely within existing disturbed
and developed road and utility ROW, access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing
transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. ES 8 would cross the San Marcos Creek within the
South La Costa Golf Course; however, this segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The
entire South La Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf cou rse. including the existing creek
alignment. The portion of the pipeline that would cross Encinitas Creek would be attached to an existing bridge and
would not require ground-disturbing construction within the creek bed. These areas do not support high quality
biological resources and are subject to a number of anthropogenic-related disturbances that degrade the
surrounding habitat and limit use by most plant and wildlife species. As such, no direct impacts would be expected
to occur to any sensitive biological resources, including special-status species.
However, limited portions of several project components occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas that
could support sensitive biological resources. Therefore, construction of these components could result in indirect
impacts to special-status species, as addressed further below.
Special-Status Plant Species. In total, 54 special-status plant species have been reported at locations in the vicinity of
the Phase Ill project sites (Appendix B). None of the 54 special-status plant species have been reported as occupying
habitat specifically located within the project sites themselves. All of the project sites lack suitable habitat for
special-status plant species and are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW or disturbed bare earth
associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of
non-native ruderal (weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. No special-status plant species would be
expected to occur within the any of the project sites given the high level of disturbance and overall unsuitability of
the existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to any
special-status plant species as a result of the project.
Special-Status Wildlife Species. In total, 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported at locations in the
vicinity of the project sites (Appendix B). None of the 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported as
occupying habitat specifically located within the project sites themselves. Similar to that found for special-status
plant species, the project sites lack suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species given the prevalence of paved
asphalt in existing ROW, disturbed bare earth in access roads, and previously graded conditions. There are a number
of disturbance factors associated with the sites that would preclude most special-status wildlife species from using
the area as temporary or permanent habitat. These factors include the presence of existing developments; exposure
to regular disturbances, including lighting, noise, vehicle, and pedestrian activity; regional isolation and lack of direct
connectivity or reasonable proximity to larger, better quality habitat; and, overall poor quality or lack of resources
with respect to providing nesting, foraging, dispersal, refuge or other habitat elements important to species life
history requirements.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-29
~oplember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 114 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Most of the areas surrounding the Phase Ill sites are regularly used by vehicles and pedestrians, which present
ongoing adverse direct and indirect effects associated with regular roadway use, encroachment into undeveloped
areas, nighttime lighting, and high noise levels. These ongoing effects degrade the existing habitat and deter special-
status wildlife species from using the area. In addition, most of the sites are constrained in all directions by existing
developments, thereby reducing the likelihood for special-status wildlife species to disperse or migrate over the sites
and immediate vicinity. The relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in proximity to some of the
sites has been reduced to small, fragmented, and low-quality stands, which are disconnected and isolated from
habitat in the local and regional area. Most of these off-site stands do not offer the space and resources required by
most of the special-status wildlife species.
Given these factors, special-status wildlife species would not be expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of
most of the project sites. However, several of the project components contain small segments that occur
immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could support special-status wildlife
species. These components include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9. Although no direct impacts to special-status
wildlife species would be expected, potential indirect impacts could occur to special-status wildlife species during
project construction. The Phase Ill project components with segments that occur adjacent to undeveloped areas are
depicted within Figure 13 and listed below within Table 3, along with a discussion of the potential indirect impact.
Table 3
Project
Component
Expansion
Segment 1
Expansion
Segment 2
Expansion
Segment 5
Expansion
Segment 8
Expansion
Segment9
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts
(Only) to Special Status Species
Rationale for Determination
Expansion Segment 1 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of
this project component within West Oaks Way and Palomar Oaks Way will occur immediately adjacent to
undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands.
All construction activities would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be
directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project
construction would coincide with the breeding season.
Expansion Segment 2 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within disturbed and developed areas.
Portions of this project component near Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Encinas Power Station, and near Avenida
Encinas and the CWRF facility will occur adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife
species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction activities would be restricted to existing
disturbed and developed areas, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect
noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction would coincide with the
breeding season.
Expansion Segment 5 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of
this project component that would be installed along Haymar Drive, Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive,
Pontiac Drive, Park Drive, and Palmer Way are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status
wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, as shown in Figure 13. All construction activities
would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed.
Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides
with the breeding season.
Expansion Segment 8 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of
this project component near El Camino Real and the La Costa Resort and Spa are adjacent to undeveloped areas
that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction
activities would be restricted to existing developed roads and the developed South La Costa Golf Course.
Trenchless construction would be used to cross San Marcos Creek within the golf course. ,aflG-fl No trees, shrubs, or
habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird
species if project construction coincides with the breeding season.
Expansion Segment 9 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within disturbed areas. Portions of
this project component near Ponto Drive are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status
wildlife species and sensitive natural communities. All construction activities would be restricted to existing
disturbed land, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts
could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Pa ge IS-30
£optombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 115 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potential indirect impacts to special-status species and their habitat from construction of the project components
listed within Table 3 could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration, as discussed
further below. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction; however, the CMWD has committed to
daytime construction hours and construction of the project would not require the use of nighttime lighting.
Therefore, no indirect impacts resulting from nighttime lighting would occur. In addition, as described in Section 9,
potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas
would be controlled and reduced through implementation of the project features listed in Appendix A, including a
Storm Water General Permit, General Linear Utility Permit, and compliance with local development standards,
including the preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and application of appropriate BMPs.
Therefore, potential indirect impacts associated with runoff and pollutants into off-site undeveloped areas would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
Project components ES 1, ES 2, ES S, ES 8 and ES 9 would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped
areas characterized by trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) that provide suitable
nesting habitat for several common and sensitive bird species, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code. Construction of the project may
require the removal or trimming of common (non-sensitive) trees and shrubs within ornamental landscaped areas
during the general bird nesting season (FebFl:.lary l January 15 through September 15/\1:Jg1:Jst 31) and/or raptor
nesting season (January 15 through July 31), which could potentially result in impacts to nesting birds and raptors in
violation of the MBTA and CDFG Code. Indirect impacts could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in
the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest, such that the disturbance results in nest
abandonment or nest failure. This represents a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of
Mitigation Measure Bio-lA below would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
Construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of construction
equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may support special status-
species. These activities could result in a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation
Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF below would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation. In total, 17 sensitive natural communities have been reported at locations in
the vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites (Appendix B). None of the 17 communities are located within the footprints
of the individual project components. As discussed in Section 4 a), all of the project sites are characterized by paved
asphalt within existing road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or
previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and
ornamental landscape plant species. Therefore, sensitive natural communities are considered to be absent from the
project sites and no direct impacts would occur.
As discussed in Section 4 a), the project components listed within Table 3 would be constructed in the immediate
vicinity of undeveloped areas. These undeveloped areas could support sensitive natural communities. Construction
activities associated with project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 could result in potential runoff and
' inadvertent intrusions of construction equip~ent and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to
construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-s.ite habitat and would
be considered significant. As discussed in Section 9, potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants
generated from construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with the proposed project features and compliance with applicable regulations
listed in Appendix A. Further; implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF would prevent
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this
impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality
standards discussed in Section 9 and implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-32
&eptember 19. 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 117 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than significant with mitigation. All of the Phase Ill project sites are characterized by paved asphalt within
existing road ROW. a developed golf course. or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously
graded areas. No portions of the project sites occur within federally protected wetlands or other sensitive water and
wetland resources subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFG. Therefore, federally protected wetlands and other jurisdictional water and
wetland resources are considered to be absent from the project sites and no direct impacts would occur.
As discussed in Section 4 a), the project components listed within Table 3 would be constructed in the immediate
vicinity of undeveloped areas. Of these project components, portions of ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, and ES 8 are located within
upland areas that occur in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas potentially supporting wetlands.
Construction activities associated with these project components could result in potential runoff and inadvertent
intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive wetland areas adjacent to upland construction
zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or fill-related impacts and would be considered
significant. Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities
would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the project features and
compliance with the regulations listed in Appendix A. Inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and
personnel into off-site wetlands would be prevented through the implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18
through Bio-lF and would mitigate potential indirect impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, potential
indirect impacts to federally protected wetlands and other jurisdictional resources would be reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards discussed in Section 9 and
implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant. As discussed above within Section 4 a), the biological resources analysis included a thorough
review of information pertaining to the Carlsbad HMP and Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), including
regional corridors and habitat linkages. No known wildlife corridors, linkages, or nursery sites occur within or in the
immediate vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites. All of the sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing
road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas.
The sites do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of any local or regional
wildlife corridors or linkages. No suitable habitat exists that would support a nursery site. Construction and
operation of the project would not be expected to adversely affect the wildlife movement functions and values of
existing habitat in the immediate vicinity of project sites. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Less than significant. None of the proposed project components that occur within the boundaries of the coastal
zone would impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area or other protected resources, as identified within the
approved Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; therefore, the project would not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant.
Projects located within Carlsbad are subject to the requirements of the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, including the Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (HPMR) Ordinance. The HPMR
requires all development to comply with the Carlsbad HMP as well as the Implementing Agreement, the MHCP, the
Natural Communities Conservation Plan and lO(a)(l)(B) permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be
permitted to occur until all processing and permitting requirements of the HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled. As
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-33
geptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 118 of 223
ENVIRONMENT AL INITIAL STUDY
evaluated above within Section 4 a) and Section 4 b), the project would be constructed within disturbed and
developed areas. Several project components would be constructed adjacent to off-site undeveloped areas that
could support sensitive species and habitat; however, avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential
indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required,
potential impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the HPMR Ordinance
and HMP. Implementation of the project would therefore not conflict with the adopted HPMR Ordinance and
impacts would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than significant. As evaluated above in Section 4 a), Section 4 b), and Section 4 e), several project components
could result in potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP. The
CMWD is required to comply with the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the
HPMR Ordinance. Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the Carlsbad Planning Division
are required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the project description to be
consistent with the conditions of the Carlsbad HMP. In addition, projects are required to implement project-specific
procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described in the Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could
be adversely affected by the project. Avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential indirect impacts to
sensitive species and habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required, potential impacts
on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad HMP requirements.
Implementation of the Phase Ill project would therefore not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad HMP and impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation:
The following measures would mitigate the potential significant impacts identified in Section 4 a), Section 4 b), and
Section 4 c) to less than significant levels.
Bio-lA
Bio-lB
Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including raptors,
protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code, the CMWD shall enforce the following:
Prior to construction activities requiring the removal, pruning, or damage of any trees, shrubs, and man-
made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) active nests or any tree 13nming or remo·,al 013erations
during the 13rime nestinggeneral breeding seasons, that being from March lS to May 30 January 15 to
September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey shall survey
the trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction.
The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular
project component.of tree remo1ral or 13runing.
If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction. or if any
active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for construction,
the City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor
construction activities. No construction activities shall fie tree 13runing or removal 013erations can occur
until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have
fledged the nest¥a€J-tea or until the end of the j*ime-general breeding season, whichever occurs later. m
adaition, f)Fior to any tree removal or 13runing 013erations 13ro13osea outsiae of the 13rime nesting season
but within the 13erioa of January 15 to Se13tember lS, a8 qualified biologist shall confirmL in writingL that
no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities.
Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the
City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans.
Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, ES 2, ES
5, ES 8, and ES 9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to
an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-34
lloptember 19. 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 119 of 223
Bio-lC
Bio-lD
Bio-lE
Bio-lF
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to
perform a pre-construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project
construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction
for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project
plans that clearly depict the construction work limits, including construction staging and storage areas, in
order to determine which specific portion(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space
areas during the pre-construction survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of
the adjacent open space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the
likelihood for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the
area. The pre-construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior to construction in order
to verify the need for additional construction measures proposed within Bio-lC through Bio-lF.
Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-
lB that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat
potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the
installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved
limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the
approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of
construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem
has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon
completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City
Planner prior to and concurrent with construction.
Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15
to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory
songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud
construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting
site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15
through September 15).
If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lB that the project could result
in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD
shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be
present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area
potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and
confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional
protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or
CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence.
Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lB
that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially
suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such
that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall
receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of
equipment outside of the project boundaries.
Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lB that the
project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable
for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings
to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization
requirements.
J ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-35
~eptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 120 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
s. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Explanation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
~
~
~
~
No Impact
D
D
D
D
Information presented in this section is based upon a cultural resources records search performed by Atkins at the
South Coastal Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which included the
Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase Ill project.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the record search conducted for the Master Plans EIR, no historical resources
are located within one mile of the proposed Phase Ill pipeline alignments, Twin D site, or the CWRF expansion.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the project would cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource
and impacts would be considered less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Numerous archaeological resources of varying sizes are located within the project
area. Archaeological resources are generally S'qually distributed throughout the project area, but can be described
as concentrated around and near existing, large water resources, including Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda, and
Batiquitos Lagoon. Based upon the frequency and distribution of these sites, as well as the results of the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) records search, the entirety of the project area is considered to exhibit high
archaeological resource sensitivity.
The records search conducted for the 2012 Master Plans EIR identified one known archaeological resource withm
the ~rm<imity ofpotential to be impacted by ES 7, as proposed in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. Refer to
Table 4.4-4 of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects with Potential to Result in Significant Impacts to Known
Archeological Resources or Would Occur in Previously Undisturbed Areas. The entirety of ES 7 includes the
proposed Phase Ill alignment and an extension of pipeline to serve the proposed Quarry Creek Development. The
known cultural resource identified in the 2012 Master Plans EIR is in the vicinity of the Quarry Creek portion of ES 7,
located in currently undeveloped land. This portion of ES 7 is not included as part of the proposed project.
Potential impacts to cultural resources that would result from the portion of ES 7 in undeveloped land will be
addressed in the EIR that is being prepared for the Quarry Creek development.
The CWRF expansion and new storage tank would make improvements to existing facilities. The site for the new
tank has been previously graded. ES 4A would convert an existing pipeline to recycled water use. No ground
disturbing activities would be required for construction of the CWRF expansion, construction, or relocation of a new
tank, or implementation of ES 4A. Therefore, these projects would not result in any impacts to known or unknown
archeological resources.
The remainder of the components of the Phase Ill project, including ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, and the portion
of ES 7 not within the Quarry Creek Development (a s shown in Figure 8) would involve installation of new pipelines
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-36
~oplombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 121 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL IN ITIAL STUDY
located entirely within existing roadways or within the developed South La Costa Golf Course. ES 8 would cross the
San Marcos Creek within the South La Costa Golf Course; however, this segment of San Marcos Creek is not the
natural creek alignment. The entire South La tosta Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf course,
including the existing creek alignment. The portion of the pipeline that would cross Encinitas Creek would be
attached to an existing bridge and would not require ground-disturbing construction within the creek bed . These
project components were included in Table 4.4-2 of the Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects Where Impacts are Minimized · I through Implementation of Project Design Features. Archaeological resources within the road1,Nay ROWpreviously
disturbed areas would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction. Therefore, the proposed Phase Ill
project would not result in additional impacts to archeological resources in these areas. However, due to the high
cultural resource sensitivity in the area, unknown cultural resources may still be uncovered during ground disturbing
construction activities. Implementation of the procedure listed in Appendix A for the accidental discovery of
archeological resources would reduce potential impacts to potentially significant unknown archaeological resources
to a less than significant level.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant. A paleontological resource analysis of the project area was included as part of the 2012 Master
Plans EIR (Burwasser 2010; Kennedy and Tan 2002). According to this data, the project area contains one geologic
unit of high paleontological sensitivity: the Santiago formation. Excavation and construction activities associated
with the Phase Ill project components located within the Santiago formation have the potential to disturb or destroy
paleontological resources. The Phase Ill project components proposed in areas with high paleontological sensitivity
include ES 1, ES 5, ES 7, and ES 18. However, these project components would be located entirely within existing
roadways. Potential paleontological resources in these roadway ROWs have already been disturbed and the Phase
Ill project would not result in additional impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts to paleontological
resources from the Phase Ill project would be less than significant.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than significant. None of the Phase 111 project components are proposed within any formal cemeteries.
However, previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area have included human burials, which
indicate that there is a potential for human remains to be present in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition,
the NAHC has indicated that human burials are located within and near the project area and beyond the boundaries
of formal cemeteries.
Sections 15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines assign special importance to human remains and specifies
procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed under
PRC Section 5097.98. The disturbance of any human remains is considered a significant impact, regardless of
archaeological significance or association. Any ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the
Phase Ill project, including trenching and excavation during construction, would have the potential to unintentionally
disturb human remains, resulting in a significant impact.
Implementation of the required protocol in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and California State Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5, to be followed upon unintentional disturbance of human remains, would minimize
potential impacts on human remains. California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further
disturbance is permitted to occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native
American, the NAHC will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will
conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the
NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to provide technical
assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human
remains. Compliance with California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 would
reduce any potential impacts to human remains from the Phase Ill project to a level below significance and no
further mitigation would be required.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-37
~eptombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 122 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
the high seismic potential of the entire county, groundshaking risks cannot be entirely eliminated. However, the
CMWD would be required to implement the relevant requirements of the 2010 California Building Code (as updated
or amended) and California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, which would reduce
groundshaking impacts to the extent feasible. Additionally, as described in the construction measures listed in
Appendix A, a site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each
Phase Ill project component that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil. CMWD would be required
to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address potential site-specific hazards.
Therefore, potential impacts related to groundshaking would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
iv. Landslides?
Less than significant. Liquefaction is not known to have occurred historically in San Diego County. However, the
potential exists for liquefaction to occur in areas with loose sandy soils combined with a shallow groundwater table,
which typically are located in alluvial river valleys/basins and floodplains (County 2009). Additionally, certain lands
within the vicinity of the project components are subject to landslides. Generally, landslide potential is considered
high for areas that contain slopes of 15 percent or greater.
Figure 4.6-2,.Geohazards, of the 2012 Master Plans EIR depicts the CIP projects that generally have a high potential
for liquefaction and landslides based on regional soil data. ES 4A is located in a potential landslide hazard area;
however, this project component would convert an existing potable water pipeline to recycled water use. No new
risk of damage or facility failure would result from this project component because no construction or ground
disturbance would occur, and no new facilities would be constructed.
ES 1, ES 5, and ES 7 are also located in areas of high landslide risk. ES 2 and ES 9 are located in liquefaction hazard
areas. ES 8 and ES 18 would potentially be exposed to landslide and liquefaction hazards, depending on the location
of the segment. However, as listed in Appendix A, a site specific geotechnical investigation would be completed
during the engineering and design of each project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil.
CMWD would be required to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address
potential site-specific hazards related to liquefaction and landslides. Therefore, potential impacts related to
liquefaction and landslides would be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant. The CWRF expansion, storage tank construction or relocation, and ES 4A would not result in
any earth-disturbing activities that would result in the exposure of soils. However, earth-disturbing activities such as
excavation and soil stockpiling associated with the construction of the remaining Phase Ill project components
would expose soils that could be s.ubject to erosion during rain and wind events. However, as discussed in below in
Section 9a), construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or
General Linear Utility Permit requirements to protect water quality during construction, particularly from eroded
sediment. In addition, construction would be subject to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad,
Oceanside, or Vista, depending on project location. Compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A,
including the General Linear Utility Permit, and/or local development standards, including the preparation of a
SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, would reduce the potential increase in erosion associated with
construction activities to a less than significant level.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project
and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant. See Section 6a). A site-specific geotechnical investigation would be completed during the
engineering and design of each project in a potential hazard area (ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18) that
makes recommendations for any site-specific hazards. Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable soil would
be Jess than significant.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-39
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 124 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
-d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code {1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Less than significant. Figure 4.6-2, Geohazards, of the 2012 Master Plans EIR depicts the CIP projects that generally
have a high potential for expansive soils based on regional soil data. None of the Phase Ill project sites are located in
an area with high potential for expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No impact. The Phase Ill project proposes new infrastructure and would not involve the use of or need for septic
tanks or and other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not affect
existing sewer service. No impact would occur.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Explanation:
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
D D D
D D D
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Less than significant. California Health and Safety Code Section 38SOS(g) defines GHGs to include the following
compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As individual GHGs have varying
heat-trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent
(C02e) units for comparison. The C02e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it
normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. The most common GHGs related to the project are CO2
(C02e = 1), CH4 (C02e = 21), and N20 (C02e = 310).
The County of San Diego published its most recent Draft Guidelines for Determining Significance for Climate Change
on June 20, 2012. The guidelines are based on regional data, including the incorporated cities such as El Cajon, and
may be used by lead agencies in the region other than the County of San Diego. The purpose of the guidelines is to
ensure that new development achieves its fair share of emissions reductions needed to meet the statewide
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 mandate. The County's guidelines establish a screening level threshold of 2,500 MT C02e per
year. Therefore, a project that emits more than 2,500 MT C02e annually during construction or operation would
result in a potentially significant cumulative impact.
The 2012 Master Plans EIR quantified the GHG emissions that would result from construction and operation of all of
the CIP Projects proposed in the Master Plans, including the Phase Ill project. Construction of the project would
result in temporary emissions of GHG from the operation of construction equipment and from worker and building
supply vendor vehicles. Equipment that is associated with construction activity includes dozers, rollers, dewatering
pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery, and haul trucks. The 2012 Master Plans EIR determined that the worst-case
annual construction scenario, which included the Phase Ill project, would result in annual GHG emissions of 959 MT
C02e. The worst-case construction scenario is described in greater detail in Section 2b). Construction of the Phase
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-40
September 19. 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 125 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Ill project would be less than the overall total, and as a result would not generate significant GHG emissions during
construction.
Operational GHG emissions from the Phase Ill project would include indirect emissions from electricity usage and
direct emissions from mobile sources. The Phase Ill project would not result in an increase in demand for natural
gas, water, or solid waste disposal services; therefore, no increase in GHG emissions would occur from these
sources. Pipeline and storage projects, once constructed, would not require the use of electricity, emergency
generators, or any other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment. However, the increase in the capacity of the
CWRF would result in an increase in electricity demand. Existing electricity use at the CWRF is 1.2 million kWh (City
of Carlsbad 2011). The CWRF expansion would double the capacity of the existing CWRF; therefore, it was assumed
to result in a doubling of electricity demand. Therefore, the increase in capacity at the CWRF would result in a net
increase in demand of 1.2 million kWh, which would result in estimated GHG emissions of 396 MT C02e (California
Climate Action Registry 2009).
The proposed Phase Ill project components are underground pipelines, a storage tank, and an improvement to the
existing CWRF facility. Following construction, the storage tank and underground pipelines would be passive and
would not require regular maintenance. Occasional vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to
existing pipelines. No new vehicle trips would be required by the CWRF for maintenance or operation of the
expansion. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips. In the
analysis in the 2012 Master Plans EIR, it was conservatively assumed that a net increase of one maintenance trip per
day would be required, for a total increase of 5 miles based on the distance from the City of Carlsbad/CMWD
operations buildings on Faraday Avenue to the farthest portion of CIP Project ES 4C. All of the project components
are closer to the CMWD building than CIP Project ES 4C; therefore, annual GHG emissions would be less than the 1
MT C02e calculated for buildout of the Master Plans.
The total annual GHG emissions from construction of the CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Master Plans EIR
(including the Phase Ill project) is 959 MT C02e. Operation of the Phase Ill project by itself is estimated to result in
operational GHG emissions of less than 397 MT C02e per year. Neither the construction nor operation of the Phase
Ill project individually would exceed the significance threshold of 2,500 MT C02e per year. Even if construction and
operational emissions would occur simultaneously (totaling 1,356 MT C02e), annual GHG emissions would not
exceed the 2,500 MT C02e threshold. Therefore, the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in a significant
impact related to GHG emissions.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established statutory limits on
GHG emissions in California. Under AB 32, the CARS is responsible for adopting rules and regulations to reduce
statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines the
state's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit and future emissions reduction targets established by
Executive Order S-3-05. The County guidelines were established for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs
to meet the state requirements of AB 32. The guidelines are based on regional data, including the incorporated
cities and may be used by lead agencies in the region other than the County of San Diego. The guidelines were
developed in support of the County's Climate Action Plan that was approved in June 2012, and is compliant with AB
32. GHG emissions that are below the County's regional annual emissions threshold would be considered consistent
with AB 32 .
As discussed in Section 7 a), neither construction-related nor operational GHG emissions would exceed the regional
significance threshold established by the County of San Diego. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
guidelines established for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs to meet the state requirements of AB 32.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-41
~eptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 126 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wild land fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Explanation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
No Impact
D
D
D
D
D
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Less than significant. Numerous federal and state regulations require strict adherence to specific guidelines
regarding the use, transportation, disposal and accidental release of hazardous materials. Regulations associated
with transporting, using or disposing of hazardous materials include the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act,
which provides the 'cradle to grave' regulation of hazardous wastes; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act, which requires any infrastructure at the state and local levels to plan for chemical emergencies; the
International Fire Code, which regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at
fixed facilities; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on
U.S. roadways; California Health and Safety Code, which provides threshold quantities for regulated hazardous
substances and the establishment of Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans; California Code or Regulations
Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste;
California Code or Regulations Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous solid
wastes; SB 1889, which defines regulated substances as chemicals that pose a threat to public health and safety or
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-42
~eplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 127 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive; and the Consolidated Fire Code, which
includes permit requirements for the installation, alteration, or repair of new and existing fire protection systems,
and penalties for violations of the code.
Construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project would have the potential to generate small amounts of
hazardous materials and wastes. Petroleum products such as fuels and oils would be the predominant materials
used during construction due to operation of motorized construction equipment and vehicles. The main hazardous
wastes produced by construction activity would be waste oil and oil-saturated materials from construction
equipment. Hazardous materials and waste would be managed and used in accordance with all applicable federal,
state, and local Jaws and regulations, described above. There would be no routine transport, storage, use, or
disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Minimal amounts of hazardous materials may be
transported to and from a site during construction, but the transport of such materials would be temporary and
subject to applicable regulations, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Therefore, impacts
associated with hazardous wastes generated from construction activities would be Jess than significant.
Following construction, the proposed pipelines and storage tank would be passive and would not require the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the CWRF currently uses chemicals and other
hazardous materials in its treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additional use of these
materials, including chlorine. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) has already been prepared for the CWRF
in accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Hazardous Materials Division
requirements. The HMBP includes an inventory of all hazardous materials and a description of each material's
properties, identification of the site operator, a map identifying the location of the hazardous materials, emergency
response procedures for major and minor emergencies, an emergency response plan, and a description of required
employee training.
Implementation of the CWRF expansion would result in a slight increase in the use of hazardous materials already
used at the CWRF due to an increase in the capacity of the treatment facility. Hazards related to these materials
could occur during storage, transportation, use, disposal, or accidental release. The proposed new CWRF treatment
facilities would be required to be incorporated into the existing CWRF HMBP. The procedures in the plan comply
with U.S. Department of Transportation (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) and CHP regulations for the
transportation of hazardous materials along state highways, and are subject to approval by the DEH . Disposal of
CWRF equipment, such as filters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state
and local Jaws and regulations. Therefore, routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials at the CWRF
would be managed and used as required by all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, such as
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act Title 22, the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, and Hazardous Material Business Plans. Impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal
of hazardous materials generated from operational activities would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport and use of fuels, oil, and
other fluids associated with construction equipment. Leaks or spills may occur during construction, potentially
releasing hydrocarbons to the environment; however, compliance with applicable California Department of Toxic
Substances Control regulations for the handling of hazardous materials and spill cleanup procedures would prevent
potentially significant impacts. Operation of the pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to
the environment. Operation of the CWRF expansion would be subject to the HMBP prepared for the CWRF which
has been approved by the DEH. This plan establishes procedures to minimize the potential for upsets or accidents to
occur in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations, and establishes emergency procedures should an
accident occur. Therefore, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-43
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 128 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. Operation of the storage tank and pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the
environment. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the CWRF. No impact would occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than significant with mitigation. A record search of the areas in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project components
was conducted by Atkins in February 2012 of federal, state, and local databases of sites that generate, store, treat,
or dispose of hazardous materials, or sites for which a hazardous materials release or incident has occurred. The
records search included the Geo Tracker database, the EnviroStor database, and the Site Assessment and Mitigation
Program. The Geo Tracker database is a geographic information system that provides on line access to environmental
data including underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies. The EnviroStor database
includes the following site types: Federal Superfund Sites (National Priorities List); State Response, including Military
Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. The Site Assessment and Mitigation Program
lists sites in San Diego County that require permitting for handling hazardous materials.
The Geo Tracker Database identified approximately 50 recorded sites along the Phase Ill project alignments and one
near the CWRF. Sites were identified along every Phase Ill alignment except ES 7. Site records included leaking
underground storage tanks, land disposal sites, and other cleanup sites. Ten out of the 50 recorded sites are open
cases; the remainder of the cases have been closed. Open cases involving leaking underground storage tank and
cleanup sites are concentrated near McClellan-Palomar Airport and gas stations along El Camino Real. One closed
underground storage tank case is located at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, adjacent to the CWRF. The
EnviroStor database identified one permitted hazardous materials facility (Cabrillo Power Plant) and one cleanup site
along ES 2, one permitted facility (Vista Industrial Products) and one school site investigation along ES 4A, and one
site evaluation of a dry cleaning facility along ES 9. The Site Assessment and Mitigation Program lists 783 permitted
hazardous materials establishments in Carlsbad. None of identified sites are located within a roadway ROW;
however, the potential exists for the soil underlying the Phase Ill project sites to have been previously contaminated
by hazardous substances as a result of former uses of the sites surrounding the alignment or leaks from unidentified
underground storage tanks. Typical pathways of exposure to pollutants from existing contamination include
inhalation of volatiles and fugitive particulates, and dermal absorption.
Potential exposure to contaminants could occur to construction workers during grading, trenching, excavation and
site development activities that would expose potentially contaminated soil. ES 4A, construction or relocation of the
storage tank, and the CWRF expansion do not require any ground-disturbing construction activities that would
potentially expose workers to contaminated soil. ES 7 is proposed in a residential neighborhood, which typically
does not include permitted hazardous materials establishments, and no hazardous materials sites were identified
along this alignment. Therefore, construction of ES 4A, ES 7, storage tank, and the CWRF expansion would not result
in a significant impact related to listed hazardous materials sites during construction. However, construction of ES 2,
ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potential to encounter contaminated soil during construction activities
and expose construction workers to a significant hazard. Impacts during construction would be potentially
significant. However, implementation of mitigation measures Haz-1 and Haz-2 would reduce potential hazards
related to listed hazardous materials sites to a less than significant level.
None of the Phase Ill project components propose a facility for human habitation that would potentially result in
long-term exposure to risks from an existing hazardous materials site. The CWRF expansion makes interior
improvements to an existing building at the CWRF. Therefore, workers at the CWRF would not be exposed to any
additional risk from hazardous sites as a result of the project. Additionally, the site located adjacent to the CWRF at
the EWPCF (Case No. T0607300568) is closed and no future action required. Therefore, potential impacts during
operation would be less than significant.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-44
September 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 129 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopte.d, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
No Impact. ES 1 would be located within the Palomar-McClellan Airport Influence Area and Flight Activity Zone. The
proposed pipeline would be located underground and does not involve any construction or long-term operational
features that would result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No
structures for human occupancy are proposed in the Flight Activity Zone. Activities at Palomar-McClellan Airport
would be unaffected by the proposed project. Additionally, none of the proposed Phase Ill project components are
within the Airport Influence Area for Oceanside Municipal Airport. No impact would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project. No impact would occur.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than significant. Interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan would result in an
adverse physical effect to people or the environment by potentially increasing the loss of life and property in the
event of a disaster. The CWRF expansion, construction or relocation of the storage tank, and ES 4A would make
improvements to existing facilities and would not result in any impact to emergency response or evacuation plans
during construction or operation. Following construction, the proposed pipelines in ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9,
and ES 18 would be located underground. No impact to emergency response or evacuation plans would occur_.
However, construction activities associated with these pipelines, particularly excavation and trenching activities
associated with pipeline extensions or other improvements that are within roadway ROW, may result in temporary,
construction-related lane and road closures or detours. Temporary roadway closures could potentially interfere
with emergency plans and procedures if appropriate authorities are not properly notified, or multiple projects are
constructed during the same time and multiple roadways used for emergency routes are concurrently blocked.
However, the CMWD has committed to preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan, as described in the
list of construction measures in Appendix A. With implementation of a traffic control plan, the Phase Ill project
would not result in a potentially significant impact associated with impairment or interference with emergency
response or evacuation plans.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than significant. Construction activities may result in a potential fire risk due to the presence of fuel-burning
construction equipment. The Phase Ill project components are located entirely within existing facilities or existing
roadway ROW in developed areas. However, some construction would occur adjacent to undeveloped areas. The
CMWD has committed to construction measures, listed in Appendix A to reduce fire risk during construction.
Preparation of a brush management plan and dissemination of fire safety information to construction crews would
ensure that construction impacts would not be significant.
Mitigation:
The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites
(Section 8d) to a less than significant level.
Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall
provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the
potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils,
these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH
requirements.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-45
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 130 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Haz-2 Construction Worker Health and Safety Work Plan. Prior to construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, or ES 18,
CMWD shall have a project-specific health and safety work plan prepared and distributed to the
construction workers to address the potential exposure to hazardous materials associated with working
with or near contaminated soil. This work plan shall comply with all County of San Diego DEH work plan
requirements including Community Health and Safety Planning to address physical hazards, site security,
management of soil and water, and monitoring equipment. A description of engineering controls and
measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site workers, public and
the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the construction area shall be
provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The engineering controls and measures
to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
1) An exclusion zone and support zone shall be established prior to start and during excavation activities.
No unauthorized personnel shall be allowed in these zones. Personnel authorized to work in these
zones shall have the required training and qualifications including the California Occupational Safety &
Health Administration (OSHA) HAZWOPER training.
2) Written notifications shall be posted on the perimeter fencing in advance of start of excavation to
notify the general public and hotel staff/operators of the nature and duration of work activities. The
postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers.
3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones.
4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks or
respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek0 protective clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or ear
muffs.
5) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting the exclusion zone.
6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or Visqueen ™, if stored on site, to prevent
or reduce off-gassing into the atmosphere and to protect the stockpile from erosion due to storm
runoff. If on-site temporary storage becomes necessary, the stockpiles shall be placed downwind
downstream of any sensitive receptors in the area.
7) All work shall stop if ambient air concentrations exceed acceptable thresholds as approved by the San
Diego County DEH, and excavation shall be backfilled with inert soil or other material until
concentration drop back to normal.
8) Exposure to dust and potential inhalation hazards shall be controlled by lightly spraying the excavated
materials with clean water as they are stockpiled on site or as they are transferred to trucks for
shipment offsite. A dust monitor shall be used on site to measure airborne dust during activities that
are expected to generate dust. If dust levels exceed permissible exposure levels as set by OSHA
standards, additional measures for dust control such as the use of industrial non-toxic dust
suppressants shall be implemented.
9) Runoff around the excavation site shall be controlled by placing fiber rolls or other similar types of
erosion and runoff control means to direct surface runoff and to protect the nearby downstream storm
drains.
10) Vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall be directed away from the construction zone prior to and during
excavation and follow-on activities in accordance with a traffic plan approved by the City of San Diego
or City of Oceanside, as applicable, and in coordination with CMWD.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-46
~optomber 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 131 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge D D D requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate D D D
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, induding through the alteration of the course of a D D D stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or D D D
amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in
flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage D D ~ D systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D ~ D
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood D D D ~
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which D D D ~ would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a D D D ~
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D D ~
Explanation:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than significant. The Phase Ill project would have the potential to contribute to a violation of water quality
standards or the degradation of surface water quality during construction. Construction of the Phase Ill project
could result in polluted runoff through activities such as excavation, stockpiling of soils and materials, and concrete
pouring. This runoff would have short-term adverse impacts on surface water quality. Typically, construction
activities involve various types of equipment such as dozers, scrapers, graders, loaders, compactors, dump trucks,
water trucks, and concrete mixers. Additionally, soils are typically stockpiled outdoors, in addition to other materials
that would be used later during construction.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-47
:;epiember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 132 of 223
ENVIRO NMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Pollutants associated with these construction activities that would substantially degrade water quality include soils,
debris, other materials generated during demolition and clearing, fuels and other fluids associated with the
equipment used for construction, paints,-other hazardous materials, concrete slurries, and asphalt materials. ES 4A
would not make improvements to an existing pipeline and would not require any heavy construction equipment or
ground-disturbing activities. The CWRF expansion and construction or relocation of the storage tank would make
improvements to existing facilities on previously graded sites. No ground-disturbing acidities would be required and
potential pollutants from construction equipment would be contained within the CWRF or its existing drainage
system. Therefore, construction of these project components would not result in significant water quality impact
during construction.
Pollutants associated with construction activities for ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would potentially
degrade water quality if they are washed by storm water or non-storm water into surface waters. Sediment is often
the most common pollutant associated with construction sites because of the associated earth-moving activities and
areas of exposed soil. Sediment that is washed off site can result in turbidity in surface waters, which can impact
aquatic species. In addition, when sediment is deposited into receiving water it can smother organisms, alter the
substrate and habitat, and alter the drainage course. Hydrocarbons such as fuels, asphalt materials, oils, and
hazardous materials such as paints and concrete slurries discharged from construction sites could also impact
aquatic plants and animals downstream. Debris and trash could be washed into existing storm drainage channels to
downstream surface waters and could impact wildlife as well as aesthetic value. The potential increase in pollutants
associated with construction activities could result in a violation in water quality standards or a substantial
degradation of water quality.
However, construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or
General Linear Utility Permit (for expansion segments that would disturb less than one acre) requirements, in
addition to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad or Oceanside, depending on project location. The City
of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards Manual and the Oceanside Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance outline
specific requirements to ensure compliance with all applicable storm water ordinances. Every construction activity
within Carlsbad that has the potential to negatively affect water quality must prepare a construction SWPPP. A
SWPPP provides for temporary measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction as required
by the most recent statewide permit regulating construction activities. The SWPPP requirements in the Storm Water
Standards Manual ensure compliance with the Carlsbad Storm Water Ordinance. Additionally, construction activities
must comply with all construction BMPs required pursuant to Title 15 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Grading and
Drainage, including minimizing and stabilizing disturbed areas, protecting slopes and channels, controlling the site
perimeter, and controlling internal erosion.
If dewatering is required for any Phase Ill project, dewatering and discharge activities would be subject to water
quality guidelines outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System administered by the San Diego
RWQCB. Additionally, the CMWD has committed to the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential water
quality impacts, including a spill contingency plan and requirements for groundwater disposal, if encountered.
Compliance with the proposed project features and the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A would reduce the
potential increase in pollutants associated with construction activities to a less than significant level.
Following construction, the Phase Ill project would not result in any new impervious surfaces and does not include
any components that would generate potential water quality pollutants. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not
increase runoff and would not result in a violation of waste discharge requirements from operation. Impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less than significant. None of the Phase Ill project components would affect groundwater recharge because they
would not involve the extraction or use of groundwater supplies. Further, each project component would comply
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-48
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 133 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
with all applicable construction storm water permits, which require the implementation of construction and post
construction BMPs, as described above in Section 9a). Compliance with the construction permits would reduce the
potential for the project to substantially interfere with groundwater quality to a less than significant level. The
construction and operation of the proposed Phase Ill project would not use groundwater and would not directly
affect groundwater levels. Dewatering, a method which pumps groundwater into either a surface water body or
directly into a stormwater drainage system, may be required to prepare sites for placement of proposed pipelines
and other underground facilities; however, the potential impact to groundwater would be temporary and would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Further, the Phase Ill project would only result in an increase in
impervious surfaces at the new storage tank site and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, a
less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Phase Ill project.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
Less than significant. Land-disturbing construction activities for proposed Phase Ill project, such as grading,
trenching, or excavation, have the potential to result in localized temporary or permanent alteration of drainage
patterns. This can lead to deposition of pollutants and sediment to the watershed outlets and an increase in
polluted runoff to surface receiving bodies. However, as discussed in Section 9a), project design features and
existing state and local regulations are in place to ensure that impacts to water quality from construction activities
would not occur, including increases in sediment runoff. These regulations require the implementation of BMPs
during construction that minimize disturbance, protect slopes and reduce erosion. Compliance with existing
regulations would reduce the potential increase in polluted runoff, erosion and siltation associated with construction
to a less than significant level. Upon completion of construction, no increase in impervious surfaces would occur as a
result of the Phase Ill project. Trenched areas would be restored to their previous condition and no alteration of the
drainage pattern would occur. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the project would
not substantially alter drainage patterns and would not increase erosion and siltation.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
Less than significant. Land-disturbing construction activities, such as grading and excavation, could result in the
localized alteration of drainage patterns. Temporary ponding and/or flooding could result from temporary
alterations of the drainage system that reduce its capacity to carry runoff. However, construction of the Phase Ill
project would be required to comply with existing regulations that reduce the likelihood of alterations in drainage to
result in flooding impacts, such as those listed above in Section 9a). Through compliance with existing local and state
regulations, including implementation of construction BMPs, construction activities associated with the Phase Ill
project would not increase the rate and amount of surface runoff to streams and rivers in a manner which would
result in flooding on or off site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than significant. Drainage facilities including storm drains, culverts, inlets, channels, curbs, roads, or other such
structures are designed to prevent flooding by collecting storm water runoff and directing flows to either the natural
drainage course and/or away from development. If drainage facilities are not adequately designed, built, or properly
maintained, the capacity of the existing facilities can be exceeded resulting in flooding and increased sources of
polluted runoff. As discussed in Section 9d), the Phase Ill project would have the potential to result in alterations of
drainage patterns during construction. This alteration in drainage patterns could exceed the capacity of existing or
planned on-site and off-site storm water drainage systems.
Storm water discharges are generated by precipitation and runoff from land, structures, and other surfaces.
Substantial increased runoff volumes would have the potential to overload existing drainage facilities and increase
flows and velocity which could result in flooding, increased erosion, and impacts to downstream receiving waters
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-49
£eptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 134 of 223
ENVIR ONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
and habitat integrity. However, construction of the Phase Ill project would be required to comply with state and
local stormwater regulations, including construction BMPs, which reduce the likelihood of runoff exceeding the
capacity of an existing storm water drainage system. Through compliance with the existing regulations, the Phase Ill
project would not increase runoff in volumes that would exceed pre-project site conditions and would not exceed
the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 9 a), compliance with applicable state and local regulations would
prevent potentially significant impacts to water quality. Operation of the proposed pipelines would be entirely
underground and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The storage tank would be a passive facility
on an existing storage tank site and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The CWRF expansion
makes improvements to an existing facility and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. Therefore, the
proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No impact. The Phase Ill project does not include the provision of any housing; therefore, the project would not
place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FIRM or other
flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No impact. The Phase Ill project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities.
Approximately 20 feet of the ES 8 pipeline alignment would be exposed over Encinitas Creek within the South La
Costa Golf Course; however, the 6 inch pipeline would be attached to the side of an existing bridge and would not
result in any additional interference with 100-year flows. Therefore, the project would not place structures which
· would impede or redirect flow within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No impact. The dam inundation area potentially affecting the Phase Ill project surrounds the Maerkle Dam, in close
proximity to ES 8. However, ES 8 proposed an underground pipeline that would not be affected by dam inundation.
None of the Phase Ill project components involve housing or structures for human occupancy. Therefore, a dam
inundation event would not result in injury or death related to proposed Phase Ill project. No impact would occur.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No impact. A seiche is a standing wave in a completely or partially enclosed body of water. Although Maerkle
Reservoir is located near ES 8, this water body is not large enough to be subject to seiches. Some overtopping of the
reservoirs may occur; however, ES 8 proposesbahly an underground pipeline. The Phase Ill project does not propose
any structures that would be at risk from seiches.
A tsunami is a very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. Tsunamis can cause
flooding to coastlines and inland areas less than 50 feet above sea level and within one mile of the shoreline. The
CWRF expansion, ES 2, and ES 9 would be located within one mile of the coastline. However, these project
components propose improvements to an existing facility and underground pipelines. The Phase Ill project would
not result in new facilities at risk for tsunami hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to a
significant risk from a tsunami.
Debris flows, also known as mudflows, are shallow water-saturated landslides that travel rapidly down slopes
carrying rocks, brush, and other debris. The project area contains many areas with steep slopes, or mountainous
areas, that would potentially be subject to mudflows in the event of large amounts or precipitation. However, the
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-50
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 135 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Phase Ill project does not propose housing or buildings for human occupancy; therefore, life loss would not occur in
the event of a mudflow. No new structures are proposed that would have the potential to be at risk of structure loss.
Therefore, no impact related to mudflows would occur.
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
10. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? D D D
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general pla·n, specific plan, D D D
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or D D D natural communities conservation plan?
Explanation:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant. The Phase Ill project proposes underground facilities and improvements on CMWD property
containing existing facilities. The Phase Ill project would not result in any new physical barriers following
construction. As discussed in Section 8g), the CMWD would implement traffic control plans during construction so
that roadways affected by construction would continue to be usable by vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established neighborhood during construction or operation.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdi'ction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant. Construction of the Phase Ill project would be located within existing or planned roads, an
existing tank site, and the existing CWRF. Construction would result potential incompatibilities with surrounding
land uses if it would require a roadway closure. However, as discussed in Section 8g), a traffic control plan would be
implemented during construction of any Phase Ill project that would interfere with traffic flow. Construction
activities would also have the potential to generate noise levels that are incompatible with surrounding land uses.
As discussed in Section 12d), construction activities would comply with all restrictions on construction hours
established in the Carlsbad and Oceanside noise ordinances so that construction would not disturb sleep.
Construction activities would also include best management practices to minimize noise to daytime noise sensitive
land uses. Therefore, construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in any significant land use
conflicts or incompatibilities.
The Phase Ill project proposes below-ground pipelines and upgrades to and existing tank site and the existing CWRF
and would not have local land use effects after installation. The CWRF expansion would not result in any change in
land use and would not result in any land use conflicts or incompatibilities. As discussed in Section 13, the Phase Ill
project components were designed to meet present and future recycled water needs for projected growth within
the areas served by the CMWD, consistent with the 2012 RWMP growth projections. Implementation of the Phase
Ill project would not induce any unplanned growth. The 2012 RWMP is intended to implement the recycled water
infrastructure necessary to meet the land use goals established in the Carlsbad General Plan. The Phase Ill project
would also potentially require discretionary permits from the jurisdiction in which the project is located, whether it
be Carlsbad or Oceanside. Future projects would be required to comply with all applicable land use regulations in
order to obtain project approval and would be further evaluated at the time of project design and review.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-51
30ptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 136 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not conflict with the Carlsbad General Plans or other land use regulations and
ordinances.
The Coastal Zone of Carlsbad is located within areas that are west of El Camino Real. The CWRF expansion, ES 1, ES
2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 are located in this area. These project components would have the potential to affect the
Coastal Zone, and some construction activities would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Since
Carlsbad has an approved Local Coastal Program as of 1996, the City acts as the local permitting authority for the
issuance of CDPs for projects located within its coastal zone, with a few exceptions. There are areas of "deferred
certification" where the state retains permitting authority. For example, Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies outside of
Carlsbad's permitting authority, and the project in its vicinity (ES 2) would require a CDP from the California Coastal
Commission. All projects in the Carlsbad coastal zone would require review for consistency with the Local Coastal
Program and California Coast Act prior to issuance of a CDP. The future required review and issuance of CDPs would
ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the Local Coastal Program; individual components would
require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with the California Coast Act.
The Phase Ill project would not conflict with any existing general plan, coastal plan or any other land use plan or
policy, or result in any land use incompatibilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As evaluated above in Section 4 f), several project components could result in
potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP. However, potential
impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad HMP
requirements. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would therefore not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad HMP
and impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
11. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of D D D
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general D D D
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Explanation:
a} Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
No impact. No mineral resources are actively being extracted and utilized as exploitable natural resources within
Carlsbad. The Phase Ill project component areas are designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3, which indicated that
mineral resources are potentially present. Additional geotechnical investigations would be required to determine
whether these areas contain resources of value, or are located in areas that do not contain mineral resources
(Dudek 2003, City of Vista 2011, and City of Oceanside 2002). Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not result in the
loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-52
geptember 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 137 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No impact. The Phase Ill project would be constructed within roadway ROW or at existing facilities. Additionally,
the proposed Phase Ill project consists of public utilities infrastructure that would not be considered incompatible
land uses that would preclude areas surrounding the project components sites from being used for mineral
extraction. No impact would occur.
12. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation:
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
D D D
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant. Construction of the project would potentially result in temporary increases in noise levels from
the operation of construction equipment. Construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project would involve
the use of heavy equipment during trenching and extraction, and installation of some equipment, such as the CWRF
expansion equipment. Equipment that would be associated with construction of the proposed Phase Ill project
includes dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, cranes, and delivery trucks. The magnitude of the
impact would depend on the type of construction activity, type of construction equipment, duration of the
construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening topography. Sound levels
of typical construction equipment range from 60 dBA to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source (FHWA 2008).
The CMWD has committed to the measures list in Appendix A during construction of Phase Ill project to minimize
noise effects to surrounding neighborhoods, including distancing noise sources from residences, compliance with
applicable noise ordinances, and providing notice of construction to residents and property owners.
The City of Carlsbad prohibits construction after sunset on any day, and before 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday,
and before 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day on Sunday or holidays. In Oceanside, operation
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-53
~optomber 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 138 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
of any pneumatic or air hammer, pile driver, steam shovel, derrick, steam, or electric hoist, or other appliance, the
use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise, is prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. As
discussed above, the CMWD.would comply with all limits on construction hours established in the cities' noise
ordinances.
The City of Oceanside includes additional requirements for construction noise. In Oceanside, construction is
required to comply with the exterior noise standards in Table 4 unless the City Manager determines that
construction furthers the public interest and exempts construction from this required.
Table4 City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards
Applicable Limit
Zone (decibels) 111 Time Period
Residential Estate, Single-Family Residential, Medium Density 50 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
Residential, Agricultural, Open Space 45 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
High Density, Residential Tourist 55 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
50 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
Commercial 65 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
60 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
Industrial 70 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
65 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
Downtown 65 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
55 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
111 One-hour average sound level.
Source: City of Oceanside Municipal Code, Section 38.12
A portion of ES 5 is located in Oceanside. ES 5 would install a new pipeline to increase the availability of recycled
water. The Oceanside City Management would determine if this project would further public interest and would be
exempted from the hourly noise level limits. Regardless, the project design features above would minimize
construction noise. Additionally, the proposed Phase Ill project would not be constructed all at once and not all
equipment would be operating at the same time. Pipeline projects would be constructed in a linear fashion and
would only result in construction noise at a particular receptor for a short time. Therefore, implementation of the
Phase Ill project would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the
Carlsbad or Oceanside noise ordinances during construction.
Following construction, the potential transportation noise sources for the Phase Ill project would be primarily
associated with vehicular trips by employees. However, as addressed in Section 2, operation of the Phase Ill project
would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The Phase Ill project would make improvements to the
existing CWRF or are passive pipeline and storage projects that would not increase the number of maintenance trips
typically required. Additionally, maintenance trips would be to facilities throughout the project areas and would not
be concentrated on a specific roadway. Due to the minimal number and geographic distribution of vehicular trips
associated with the maintenance of the Phase Ill project, transportation noise increases would be negligible.
Therefore, the project would not result in significant permanent increases in ambient noise associated with
transportation noise sources.
Following construction, the Phase Ill pipeline projects and storage tank would be passive and would not result in
permanent increases in the ambient noise environment. No operational noise impact would occur. The CWRF
expansion would increase the capacity of the CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact
basins. The CWRF currently generates noise from operation of pumps. Noise generating equipment would be
located within a concrete enclosure to attenuate noise. Additionally, the CMWD has committed to the construction
measures listed in Appendix A, including ensuring that operating equipment will be designed to comply with all
applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations. Therefore, the increase in capacity at the CWRF would not
permanently increase the ambient noise level surrounding the CWRF. Occasional maintenance and emergency
I ATKI NS· CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-54
£eptember l \l, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 139 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
repair activities on any Phase Ill project would have the potential to generate some additional noise. However,
these activities are sporadic in nature and do not occur at the same location for long periods of time.
Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not result in a significant impact related to substantial permanent
increases in ambient noise levels.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than significant. Vibration sources associated with implementation of the Phase Ill would be generated
primarily from project construction. Once installed, the Phase Ill project facilities include passive pipelines and
treatment facilities that do not generate substantial levels of vibration.
Construction-related vibration would have the potential to impact nearby structures and vibration-sensitive
equipment and operations. The level of vibration generated from other construction activities would depend on the
type of soils and the energy-generating capability of the construction equipment. According to Caltrans typical
construction activities and equipment, such as dozers, earthmovers, and trucks have not exceeded 0.10 in/sec peak
particle velocity at 10 feet. Vibration criteria for sensitive equipment and operations must be determined based on
manufacturer specifications and recommendations by the equipment user. As a guide, major construction activity
within 200 feet may be potentially disruptive to sensitive operations (Caltrans 2002).
No pile driving or blasting, which would potentially generate higher levels of vibration, would be required for
implementation of the Phase Ill project. Phase Ill project components located near existing commercial or industrial
development that would require heavy equipment operation that may be potentially disruptive to vibration-
sensitive operations include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18. As listed in Appendix A, the CMWD has
committed to providing advance notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to
residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. The announcement will state specifically where and
when construction will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice will
be made, either in person or by mail. Therefore, vibration-sensitive land uses within the vibration screening distance
for major construction activity would receive adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration. Although
vibration may be an annoyance to residents, residential development does not include vibration sensitive equipment
and is not considered a day-time vibration-sensitive land use. As discussed under Section 4.11.3.2 (Issue 2),
construction activities would take place during the day in accordance with the affected cities' noise ordinances.
Therefore, construction of the Phase Ill project would not disturb sleep and would not result in a significant vibration
impact to residential development.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 12 a), the proposed Phase Ill project would not generate substantial
new operational noise. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise le~els in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 12a), construction of the proposed project would result in temporary
increases in noise levels from the operation of construction equipment; however, noise levels would comply with
applicable noise ordinances and the CMWD would implement BMPs to minimize noise. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-55
£optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 140 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Less than significant. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located within Carlsbad. Oceanside Municipal Airport, a public
airport, is located in Oceanside. ES 1 would be located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and
Flight Activity Zone. However, the Phase Ill project would construct recycled water infrastructure and do not involve
any construction or long-term operational features for human occupancy that would result in regular exposure to
aircraft noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport or Oceanside Municipal Airport. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. There are no private airstrips located in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip. No
impact would occur.
13. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Explanation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Less Than Less Than
Significant With Significant
Mitigation Impact
D D
D D
D D
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact
No impact. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not directly induce population growth because the project
does not propose any new homes or business that would directly attract new growth. Additionally, implementation
of the Phase Ill project would not indirectly induce population growth because the plans have been developed to
accommodate projected population growth associated demand for recycled water projects in the 2012 RWMP,
which was prepared based on the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Growth Database. Therefore, the
projected population growth of the region that would be accommodated by the proposed Phase Ill was based upon
existing and planned land use data for the project area. The Phase Ill would not result in population growth. No
impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No impact. No housing units would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. No people would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not necessitate the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-56
~eptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 141 of 223
14. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Less Than Less Than
Significant With Significant
Mitigation Impact No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire Protection? D D D [gj
b) Police Protection? D D D [gj
c) Schools? D D D [gj
d) Parks? D D D [gj
e) Other public facilities? D D D [gj
Explanation:
a) Fire Protection?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for fire services. As such, the project would not require
the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts. _Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Police Protection?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for police services. As such, the project would not require
the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Schools?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for schools. As such, the project would not require the
. provision of new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Parks?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for parks. As such, the project would not require the
provision of new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Other Public Facilities?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for other public services. As such, implementation of the
Phase Ill project would not require the provision of new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
I J\TKI NS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-57
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 142 of 223
15. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Explanation:
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
D D D
D D D
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to the existing facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The Phase Ill project does not contain any residential uses or other
land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore, implementation of the Phase Ill project would
not impact the use of parks or other recreational facilities. There would be no impact to recreational facilities, and
no further analysis is required. No impact would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No impact. The project includes improvements to the existing facilities and installation of new pipelines. The project
does not contain any residential uses or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore,
the project would not require the construction or expansion of new recreational facilities. There would be no
impact to recreational facilities, and no further analysis is required. No impact would occur.
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant With
Impact
16. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system,
based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as
designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components of the circulation D
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards D
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results D
in substantial safety risks?
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-58
Mitigation
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
D
D
D
~eplember 19, 2Q l 2
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 143 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible D D D ~
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D ~ D
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turr'fouts, D D ~ D
bicycle racks)?
Explanation:
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as
designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would generate construction-related trips from
trucks hauling soil and/or debris from the construction sites; trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the
construction sites; and construction workers driving to/from the construction sites. These localized increases in
construction traffic would be temporary. Construction of the Phase Ill project would not occur all at once, and
would take place throughout the study area so that even simultaneous construction projects would not concentrate
traffic on the same roadways. Construction traffic would only affect a limited area immediately surrounding the
active construction area for a short time during construction of a particular Phase Ill project. Construction projects
would not be expected to generate an increase in vehicular trips that would degrade the level of service on
surrounding roadways to below an acceptable level.
The Phase Ill project would require the installation of new pipelines (ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18)
within the public ROW. Staging and storage areas may also be located in a portion of the public ROW. Potential
impacts include disruption of traffic from lane closures, detours, increased truck and other construction-related
traffic, and disruption of access to local businesses and residences in some cases. These types of impacts may affect
local circulation during the short-term course of construction activities. The CMWD will prepare and implement a
traffic control plan, as described in the construction measure for Transportation/Traffic listed in Appendix A.
Implementation of the traffic control plan would reduce potential impacts during construction to a less than
significant level.
Permanent traffic associated with operation of the Phase Ill project would occur primarily from vehicular trips by
employees. However, operation of the project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The
proposed project components are underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities. Following
construction, the underground pipelines would be passive and would not require regular maintenance. Occasional
vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to existing pipelines. The CWRF and Twin D tank site
currently require vehicle trips for maintenance. The CWRF expansion and new or relocated storage tank would not
result in new maintenance vehicle trips. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be
distributed on roadways throughout project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Implementation of the proposed
Phase Ill project would not result in long-term impacts to traffic. The project would not degrade the traffic level of
service in the study area. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less than significant. Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways that serve the City of Carlsbad, and the
portion of the City of Oceanside in the project area, include Interstate 5, State Route 78, El Camino Real, Palomar
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-59
aoptombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 144 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road (SAN DAG 2008). Construction of the proposed project would not require
construction in any of these CMP roadway ROW, with the exception of El Camino Real. As discussed in Section 16a),
the CMWD would implement a traffic control plan to reduce potential impacts to traffic flow during construction to
a less than significant level. In addition, operation of the Phase Ill project would generate a negligible increase in
vehicles trips in the area. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be distributed on roadways
throughout the project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the SAN DAG CMP. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
No impact. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not involve the construction of facilities that would
require changes in air traffic patterns from increased traffic levels, location or design . No impact would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No impact. The Phase Ill project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to CMWD properties that are
developed with existing facilities. The improvements to existing facilities would not be located adjacent to public
roadways. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible
uses. No impact would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant. Emergency access could be temporarily affected by construction in roadway ROW, which
would restrict access the area surrounding the construction sites, but roadways would not be permanently affected
by implementation of the Phase Ill project. Lane closures during construction would have the potential to result in
inadequate emergency access. However, implementation of the traffic control plan described in Appendix A,
including coordination with emergency service providers, would ensure that significant impacts would not occur
during construction of any of the proposed Phase Ill project components.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Less than significant. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and public transit could be temporarily affected by
construction within roadway ROW, but facilities would not be permanently affected by implementation of the Phase
Ill project. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not conflict with policies or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise permanently decrease the access, performance, or safety of such
facilities. As discussed in Section 16a), lane and sidewalk enclosures during construction would have the potential to
decrease the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities. However, implementation of the traffic
control plan would ensure that significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycled facilities would not occur during
construction of the proposed Phase Ill project. Construction of ES 2 in the railroad ROW would be installed using the
trench less jack-and-bore construction method and would not interfere with railroad operation. Therefore, impacts
·to alternative transportation would be less than significant.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-60
£optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 145 of 223
1 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the D D D applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing D D D facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the D D D construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or D D D
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has D D D adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to D D ~ D accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and D D ~ D regulations related to solid waste?
Explanation:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No impact. Construction of the proposed pipelines would potentially require the dewatering; however, the
dewatering effluent would be treated prior to discharge into the City's sanitary sewer system such that the water
quality would meet the requirements of the EWPCF and the RWQCB. Operation of the recycled water pipelines,
storage tank, and CWRF expansion would not generate wastewater; they would treat and convey treated
wastewater as part of the CMWD's recycled water system. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater
treatment requirement of the RWQCB. No impact would occur.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No impact. The Phase Ill project would not require potable water or generate wastewater. In addition, there is no
new development associated with the proposed project which would increase potable water demand or wastewater
generation. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (other than those associated with the proposed Phase Ill project
to treat and convey recycled water). No impact would occur.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No impact. The proposed project is an expansion of the CWRF, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and
underground recycled water pipelines; operation of the pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not
discharge into the storm water drainage system or generate surface runoff. In addition, no new impervious surfaces
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-61
geptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 146 of 223
ENVIRONM ENTAL INITIAL STUDY
would be constructed, with the exception of the area where the tank is located. The tank site is previously graded
and located on an existing storage facility site. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impact would occur.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would potentially require the use of water for fugitive
dust control and trench compaction. Construction-related water usage would be temporary and limited to relatively
small amounts; therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing
entitlements. Operation of the CWRF expansion and recycled water pipelines would not require use of water. In
fact, operation of the Phase Ill project would reduce existing and future potable water demand by expanding the
availability of recycled water. Impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that
it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Less than significant. Wastewater discharged to the Carlsbad sanitary sewer system is conveyed to the EWPCF. The
EWPCF currently treats approximately 24 million gallons per day of wastewater, and has a treatment capacity of
40.51 million gallons per day (Encina Wastewater Authority 2010, 2012).
Construction of the proposed project would potentially require the discharge of treated dewatering effluent into the
Carlsbad sanitary sewer system; however, wastewater generation from dewatering operations would be temporary
and limited to small amounts relative to the capacity of the EWPCF. No wastewater would be generated by
operations of the Phase Ill project. Therefore, the EWPCF has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
Less than significant. Construction-related non-recyclable solid waste generation would be temporary and limited to
small amounts relative to the landfill's available capacity and permitted daily throughput; therefore, there would be
sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Moreover, the long-term
operations of proposed pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not generate solid waste that would
impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. Operation of the pipelines and storage tank would not generate solid
waste. The only waste that would be generated by the CWRF would be disposal of filters and other equipment at
the end of its lifespan. Products would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and
regulations and would not impact local landfill capacity. Impacts to landfills would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 8a), all demolition debris and construction waste associated with
construction of the Phase Ill project would be properly handled and disposed of, in accordance with federal, state
and local laws and regulations related to solid and hazardous waste. Disposal of CWRF equipment at the end of its
lifespan would also be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Impacts would
be less than significant.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects 15/MND
Page 15-62
£eplember 19. 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 147 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a D D D plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a D D D project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly D D D
or indirectly?
Explanation:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Sections 4 a), 4 b), and 4 c) above with regard to biological resources.
The proposed project would not result in any direct impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or wetlands.
However, construction activities associated with project components ES 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 could result in potential
runoff that could affect wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, and inadvertent intrusions of construction
equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. Mitigation measures
Bio-lA through Bio-lF would be implemented to ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant
indirect impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitat, or wetland.
In addition, refer to Sections 5 a) and 5 b), above, with regard to cultural resources. The proposed project would not
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The Phase Ill project would be
located in existing facilities or existing roadways. If unknown archaeological resources are discovered during project
construction, the CMWD has committed to a design feature to protect potentially significant resource that would
reduce archaeological impacts associated with project construction to below a level of significance.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
Less than significant. The cumulative impact analysis determines whether the proposed project's incremental
effects would be "cumulatively considerable" when viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, or
probable future projects. A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the effect would be essentially the
same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. In discussing the cumulative impacts, one question and
a possible follow-up question will be answered for each environmental topic:
I ATKIN S CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-63
~eptembor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 148 of 223
ENVIRO NMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
1. Overall, will there be a significant cumulative impact?
2. If it is determined that a significant cumulative impact exists, would the proposed project's contribution to
this significant impact be cumulatively considerable?
The following discussion of cumulative impacts is organized by each environmental topic addressed in Sections 1-
17 of this Initial Study. The 2012 Master Plans EIR included an analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of the
Phase Ill project, in combination with the remaining RWMP CIP Projects, the 2012 Sewer and Water Master Plan
Projects, and cumulative development in the CMWD services area. This analysis is incorporated by reference, and is
summarized below as it pertains to the Phase Ill project. The following environmental topics are not discussed any
further in this section because the proposed project would have no direct impact related to these issues:
Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation.
Aesthetics. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to aesthetics is limited to the project site and its immediate
surroundings. The proposed project is located in existing roadway ROW and existing facilities in developed areas.
However, some areas of open space existing along proposed alignments. Consistent with the Master Plans EIR, as
Carlsbad continues to develop, the appearance of the project area will continue to change from undeveloped to a
more built-out, urbanized landscape. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to aesthetics is significant.
However, following construction, the Phase Ill project would be located underground or within existing CMWD sites
containing similar infrastructure. A substantial permanent visual impact would not occur as a result of the Phase Ill
project. The Phase Ill project would not result in cumulatively considerable contribution to a potentially significant
cumulative aesthetic impact.
Air Quality. Refer to Section 3c) for a discussion of cumulative air quality impacts. As discussed in Section 3c),
construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant air
quality impact related to ozone precursors or particulate matter.
Biological Resources. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to biological resources would encompass areas
contained within the planning boundaries for the Carlsbad HMP. Development projects within the cumulative
setting of the Carlsbad HMP would have the potential to contribute to cumulative direct and indirect impacts to
sensitive species and natural communities, including wetlands. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to
sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the proposed project (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is
significant. Since the adoption of the Carlsbad HMP, project-level and cumulative impacts for development projects
within the city have been mitigated to levels of less than significant. One of the many benefits of a regional habitat
conservation plan, such as the Carlsbad HMP, is that the cumulative effects of growth are mitigated by establishing a
process that preserves the most important biological resources in the region. Since its adoption, implementation of
the Carlsbad HMP has resulted in the conservation and preservation of lands supporting the highest quality and
value habitat within the city. These preserve lands support special status species, sensitive natural communities,
wetlands, and other regionally important biological resources. The preservation of this habitat has allowed for
development within the city to occur without contributing substantially to a cumulative impact.
As discussed above within Section 4, construction of some project components would have the potential to
indirectly impact off-site undeveloped areas potentially supporting special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural
communities, and habitat supporting wetlands. The magnitude of potential impacts is anticipated to be relatively
low due to the small size of the project components and temporary nature of proposed activities. All sensitive
habitat areas would be avoided and the project would incorporate adequate setbacks and protection measures to
restrict construction activities within disturbed and developed areas. Potential runoff and increase in pollutants
associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through
compliance with the proposed project features, Storm Water General Permit, General Linear Utility Permit, and local
development standards, including the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of applicable BMPs. In addition,
the CMWD is required to adhere to the provisions of the HPMR Ordinance and Carlsbad HMP protecting sensitive
biological resources within the city. Through consistency with the Carlsbad HMP and implementation of mitigation
measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
toward impacts on special status species within the regional cumulative impact area.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-64
September 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 149 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Cultural Resources. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to cultural resources is defined as the areas served
by the CMWD, which includes approximately 40-square miles of land with a similar archaeological, ethnohistoric,
and historic setting as the individual Phase Ill project sites. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative
impacts to paleontological resources encompasses the paleontologically sensitive geologic formation within the
project area, which is the Santiago Formation. Ground disturbance (e.g., grading, trenching, excavation) associated
with implementation of cumulative projects could have significant impacts on archaeological, historical, and
paleontological resources. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to cultural resources due to future
development within the planning area (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is significant.
As discussed in Section 5 above, implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact on
historical resources, known archeological resources, or paleontological resources. The CMWD has committed to a
protocol for the accidental discovery of unknown archeological resources that, if resources are discovered, would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, construction associated with the Phase Ill project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of archaeological or historical resources within the
regional cumulative impact area.
Geology and Soils. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils is generally site-
specific rather than cumulative in nature because each site has unique geologic consideration that would be subject
to uniform site development and construction standards. The structural design for all of the cumulative projects, as
well as their associated construction activities, would be required to comply with all applicable public health, safety,
and building design codes and regulations to reduce seismic and geologic hazards to an acceptable level. Therefore,
because compliance with all applicable codes and regulations is required for all cumulative projects, a significant
cumulative impact associated with geology and soils would not occur, and an analysis of the proposed project's
incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact is not required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Refer to Section 7 a) for a discussion of cumulative GHG emissions impacts. Due to the
global nature of the assessment of GHG emissions and the effects of climate change, impacts can currently only be
analyzed from a cumulative context. Therefore, the analysis provided in Section 7 a) includes both project-specific
and cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section 7 a), construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant global climate change impact related to GHG emissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and
hazardous materials is site-specific, and therefore limited to the project site and its immediate surroundings. Due to
historical releases in the area, contaminated soils and groundwater are likely to be encountered during construction
of the proposed project and nearby cumulative projects, which would potentially expose the public and the
environment to hazardous materials. This represents a potentially significant cumulative impact; however,
implementation of mitigation measure Haz-1 and Haz-2 would mitigate the Phase Ill project's direct and cumulative
impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality is
defined as the project site and the portions of the Carlsbad watershed directly downstream from the Phase Ill
project locations.
Water Quality. Even with the promulgation of storm water regulations, land disturbance and development activities
throughout the Carlsbad watershed continue to contribute to the overall water quality problems observed in runoff
flows that discharge into watercourses, lagoons, and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Water bodies in the Carlsbad
Watershed have been placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Therefore, the baseline
cumulative impact pertaining to water quality is significant. As discussed above in Section 9, the Phase Ill project
would comply with the General Linear Utility Permit and all other applicable storm water requirements, which would
ensure that the proposed project would not contribute to the further degradation of water quality. Following
construction, the Phase Ill project would not result in new sources of pollutants and would not result in a change to
the existing site drainage pattern. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the Phase Ill
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-65
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 150 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant increase in
downstream water pollution effects within the regional area.
Hydrology. Land disturbance and development activities throughout the local and basins continue to contribute to
the overall surface quality and flooding problems in the project area and in the downstream watercourses and
lagoons leading to the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to the Carlsbad watershed due to
water quality and flooding effects from discharges of storm water associated with alterations of drainage patterns is
significant. As discussed in Section 9) above, the Phase Ill project would not result in permanent impacts to existing
drainage patterns and would comply with all applicable storm water requirements during construction, which would
reduce impacts related to drainage alteration, flooding, and exceedance of capacity of storm water drainage
facilities to a level below significance. The Phase Ill would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
the cumulatively significant regional alteration of drainage patterns.
Land Use and Planning. Impacts related to consistency with land use plans and policies, and physical division of an
established community, are project-specific and not cumulative in nature. It is anticipated that development of
future cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project would undergo CEQA review which would require a
consistency analysis with applicable plans and polices. As required by CEQA, cumulative projects would be
consistent with the existing adopted plans, or require mitigation measures or design review to ensure consistency As
discussed in Section 10) above, implementation of the Phase Ill Project would not result in new land uses that would
be incompatible with surrounding land uses and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore,
the Phase Ill project, in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact
associated with land use and planning.
Noise. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the source
increases. The area of cumulative impact would be only those projects within the immediate vicinity of the Phase Ill
project. Construction of cumulative development projects is not likely to result a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels due to the localized nature of noise impacts, and construction projects would not occur
simultaneously or at the same location. In addition, construction noise for cumulative projects would be subject to
the noise standards within the appropriate jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 10), the Phase Ill project would
comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations that limit construction hours, and construction of the
Phase Ill project would implement best management practices to minimize construction noise. The Phase Ill project,
in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in cumulatively significant increases in temporary noise
levels.
Potential operational noise impacts from cumulative projects would be required to comply with the noise standards
for the jurisdiction that they are located in. As discussed in Section 10a), maintenance for the Phase Ill project may
require occasional vehicle trips for maintenance. Due to the minimal number and the geographic distribution of
vehicular trips associated with the maintenance of the projects, transportation noise increases, in comparison to
existing conditions, would not be perceptible. In addition, operational noise sources from pipelines and the storage
tank would be negligible once constructed since these are passive facilities. The CWRF expansion equipment would
be enclosed and would not increase noise levels existing noise generated on-site from pumps and other equipment.
The Phase Ill, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant increase
in permanent ambient noise levels.
Transportation/Traffic. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to transportation/traffic is limited to the
roadways that would be impacted by the proposed project during construction. It is possible that one or more of
the cumulative projects located in close proximity would be constructed concurrently with the proposed project,
which could result in a cumulative short-term impact to traffic conditions on these roadways. However,
implementation of a traffic control plan, as discussed in Section 16a) would mitigate the project's direct and
cumulative traffic impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring that adequate vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle
access is maintained during construction. Following construction, operation of the Phase Ill project would result in a
negligible amount of new traffic and would not result in a permanent impact to the regional transportation network.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-66
goplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 151 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Utilities and Service Systems. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems is defined
as the City of Carlsbad and the project area. The City and CMWD are responsible for providing adequate utilities and
service systems infrastructure to serve future growth that would be accommodated by the City of Carlsbad General
Plan, and the portions of adjacent jurisdictions within the project area. If growth would not occur concurrently with.
installation of utilities and service system infrastructure to meet demand, a significant cumulative impact would
occur. However, the proposed project would expand the CMWD's recycled water availability meet the projected
future demand of the currently adopted planning documents, and would also reduce future demand for potable
water. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant utilities and service systems impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant with mitigation. The proposed project would result in potentially substantial adverse effects to
human beings related to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. However, potential
impacts associated with the project (e.g. biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials) would either be
less than significant or mitigated to below a level of significance with the implementation of mitigation measures
Bio-lA through Bio-lF, Haz-1, and Haz-2. These mitigation measures are described in Sections 1-17 of the Initial
Study and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project.
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case a discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
This analysis incorporates by reference the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and CMWD Water
and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006, EIR 12-01). The Draft EIR addresses the
potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plan CIP Projects, including the CWRF expansion, relocation or construction of a new storage
tank, and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 18. This Initial Study also uses the information included in the
previous Initial Study and Environmental Checklist prepared for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase
II Project in December 1999, which included construction of the existing CWRF. Each of these prior certified
environmental documents are herein incorporated by reference. All referenced documents are available for review
at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
All of the checklist items were addressed above for the Phase Ill project based on the analysis in the 2012 Master
Plans EIR. Where appropriate, the EIR analysis was updated to reflect project-specific conditions.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF are based on mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF from the 2012
Master Plans EIR. These measures were slightly modified to be project-specific.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-67
£eptember 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 152 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Supporting Information Sources
AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., Conservation Biology Institute, Onaka Planning and Economics, and The Rick
Alexander Company. 2003. Final Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. Administered by SAN DAG for the
Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. March. Available
at http://www.sandag.org/in dex. asp ?proj ecti d=97 &fuseaction=p rejects.detail
Atkins. 2012a. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water
Master Plans Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2012021006. Available on-file at
the City of Carlsbad.
Atkins. 2012b. California Historical Resources Information System Client In-House Records Search, South Coastal
Information Center. January 30.
Burwasser, G. 2010, Paleontological Resources Evaluation of Vallecitos Water District, San Diego County, California,
October 28.
California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Report Protocol, Version 3.1. January.
California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2010. Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program -San Diego County Important Farmland 2008. October.
California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2009. Williamson Act Program
-San Diego County Williamson Act Lands 2008. April 16.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012a. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), RareFind Version 3.1.0. August 2012 data.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and
Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base.
Sacramento, California. January.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. January.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012d. Special Animals. California Department of Fish and Game,
Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California. January.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2003. The Changing California: Forest and Range 2003
Assessment, Land Cover Map. Accessed January 25, 2011, available at
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/statewide/fvegwhr13_map.pdf
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2009. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. June 11.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (v7-12aug 8-10-12). Data
provided by the participants of CNPS. Accessed August 22, 2012, available at
http:// en ps. web.apl us. net/ cgi-bin/i nv /inventory.cgi
City of Carlsbad. 1996. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2010 Amendments.
August 14. On-file at the City of Carlsbad and available at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/LCPA.pdf
City of Carlsbad. 1997. Vegetation Community Data Provided by City of Carlsbad GIS. Data available at the City of
Carlsbad.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-68
l>optombor 19, 2012
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 153 of 223
ENVIRO NMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
City of Carlsbad. 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates.
SCH #2003051014. October. Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad.
City of Carlsbad. 2004. Final Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Final
approval November 2004, including implementing agreement and terms and conditions. Available at
http ://www.sandag.org/uploads/pu bl ication id/publication id_ 149 _ 5 79.pdf
City of Carlsbad. 2011a . Revised Vegetation Community Data Provided by City of Carlsbad GIS. Data available at the
City of Carlsbad.
City of Carlsbad. 2011b. Carlsbad Municipal Code. October 25. Available at
http ://1 i bra ry. mun i code. com/index. as px ?cl i e ntl D=16245&state i d=9&state na m e=Ca I ifo rn i a
City of Carlsbad. 2011c. SDGE Energy FY 07 /08 With Facility ID, Cost, and Usage. Provided by Elzbieta Karczewski on
December 6, 2011.
City of Oceanside. 2002. City of Oceanside General Plan, Environmental Resource Management Element. June.
City of Vista. 2011. Vista General Plan 2030 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009121028).
December.
County of San Diego (County). 2009. San Diego County General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.
SCH#2002111067.
County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group. 2009. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining
Significance -Paleontological Resources. January 15.
County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. 2012. Draft County of San Diego Guidelines for
Determining Significance. June 20.
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program -San Diego County Important Farmland 2006. August.
Dudek. 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates. SCH
#2003051014. October.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. August.
Kennedy, M.P., and S.S. Tan . 2002. Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' X 60' Quadrangle, California. California
Geologic Survey, Sacramento.
Nett Technologies Inc. 2010. Diesel Emissions FAQ: What are diesel emissions? Accessed January 5, 2011, available
at http://www.nett.ca/faq/ diesel-1.html
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. April 22, 2009.
Accessed November 3, 2010, available at http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/2009-RAQS.pdf
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2011. 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Report for San Diego
County. September 28.
San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG). 2008. Final 2008 Congestion Management Program Update.
November.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2004. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport,
Carlsbad, California. October 4.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-69
~eptembor 19. 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 154 of 223
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012c. Species Status Page. Available at
http://www.fws.gov/ carlsbad/SpeciesStatuslist/CFWO _Species_ Status_List. htm
Biological Resource Database and Literature Review
The following provides a summarized list of the primary resources consulted for the preparation of the biological
resource analysis.
Databases
• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB;
CDFG 2012a);
• California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2012);
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2012a); and
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2012b).
Literature Review
• City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water
Master Plans Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Atkins 2012a);
• Final Carlsbad Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Subarea Plan, herein referred to as the
"Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP)", including regional mapping data for vegetation communities
and conservation areas (City of Carlsbad 1997, 2004, 2011a);
• Final MHCP Plan (AMEC et al. 2003);
• CDFG State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFG 2012b);
• CDFG Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFG 2012c);
• CDFG Special Animals List (CDFG 2012d); and
• USFWS Species Lists for San Diego County (USFWS 2012c).
List of Mitigating Measures
To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the
development of the proposed project.
Biological Resources
Bio-lA Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including raptors,
protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code, the CMWD shall enforce the following:
Prior to construction activities requiring the removal, pruning. or damage of any trees. shrubs. and man-
made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) active Rests or aRy tree pruRiRg or removal operatioRs
during the prime RestiRg general breeding seasons, that being from March 15 to May 30 January 15 to
September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey sh all survey
the trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction.
The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular
project component.of tree removal or pruRiRg.
If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction, or if any
active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for construction,
the City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor
construction activities. No construction activities shall Ra tree pruniRg or remo•,al operatioRs caR occur
until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have
fledged the nestvacated or until the end of the j*iffie-general breeding season, whichever occurs later. m
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-70
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 155 of 223
I Bio-lB
Bio-lC
Bio-lD
Bio-lE
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
addition, prior to any tree reR'loval or pruning operations proposed outside of the priR'le nesting season
but within the period of January lS to SepteR'lber lS, aA qualified biologist shall confirmL in writingL that
no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities.
Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the
City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans.
Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, .5_2, ES
5, .5_8, and .5_9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to
an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or
habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to
perform a pre-construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project
construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction
for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project plans
that clearly depict the construction work limits, including construction staging and storage areas, in order
to determine which specific portion(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space areas
during the pre-construction survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of the
adjacent open space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the likelihood
for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Po/ioptila californica
ca/ifornica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the area. The pre-
construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior to construction in order to verify the
need for additional construction measures proposed within Bio-lC through Bio-lF.
Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-
18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat
potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the
installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved
limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the
approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of
construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem
has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon
completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City
Planner prior to and concurrent with construction.
Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15
to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory
songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud
construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting
site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15
through September 15).
If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18 that the project could result
in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD
shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be
present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area
potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and
confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional
protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or
CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence.
Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18
that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially
suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-71
l>optombor 19. 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 156 of 223
Bio-lF
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall
receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of
equipment outside of the project boundaries.
Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18 that the
project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable
for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings
to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization
requirements.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall
provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the
potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated
soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance
with DEH requirements.
Haz-2 Construction Worker Health and Safety Work Plan. Prior to construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, or ES
18, CMWD shall have a project-specific health and safety work plan prepared and distributed to the
construction workers to address the potential exposure to hazardous materials associated with working
with or near contaminated soil. This work plan shall comply with all County of San Diego DEH work
plan requirements including Community Health and Safety Planning to address physical hazards, site
security, management of soil and water, and monitoring equipment. A description of engineering
controls and measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site
workers, public and the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the
construction area shall be provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The
engineering controls and measures to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered
shall include, but not be limited to the following:
1) An exclusion zone and support zone shall be established prior to start and during excavation
activities. No unauthorized personnel shall be allowed in these zones. Personnel authorized to
work in these zones shall have the required training and qualifications including OSHA HAZWOPER
training.
2) Written notifications shall be posted on the perimeter fencing in advance of start of excavation to
notify the general public and hotel staff/operators of the nature and duration of work activities.
The postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers.
3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones.
4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks
or respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek0 protective clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or
ear muffs.
5) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting the exclusion
zone.
6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or Visqueen TM ,if stored on site, to
prevent or reduce off-gassing into the atmosphere and to protect the stockpile from erosion due
to storm runoff. If on-site temporary storage becomes necessary, the stockpiles shall be placed
downwind downstream of any sensitive receptors in the area.
7) All work shall stop if ambient air concentrations exceed acceptable thresholds as approved by the
San Diego County DEH, and excavation shall be backfilled with inert soil or other material until
concentration drop back to normal.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-72
~eptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 157 of 223
I ATKINS
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-74
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 159 of 223
Appendix A
Regulatory Compliance and
Project Design and Construction Features
Regulatory Compliance
Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to
various environmental topics, such as the following.
Air Quality
During construction activities for proposed project components, CMWD would comply with San Diego Air Pollution
Control District Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. Rule 55 requires the following:
1. No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity in a manner that discharges visible dust
emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than
3 minutes in any 60 minute period; and
2. Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track-
out/carry-out shall be minimized by the use of effective trackout/carry-out and erosion control measures
listed in Rule 55 that apply to the project or operation. These measures include track-out grates or gravel
beds at each egress point; wheel-washing at each egress during muddy conditions; soil binders, chemical
soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; watering for dust control; and using secureq tarps or
cargo covering, watering, or treating of transported material for outbound transport trucks.
Biological Resources
Prior to construction activities for projects located within the boundaries of the city, and where it has been
demonstrated that the project could result in impacts to biological resources addressed in the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities, including HMP Species, Narrow Endemic Species, HMP
Habitats, Existing and Proposed HMP Hardline Preserve Areas, Special Resource Areas, and HMP Core and Linkage
Areas, as defined in the HMP, the CMWD would demonstrate how implementation of the project would comply
with the requirements of the HMP, including the established conservation goals and objectives of the HMP, and
the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified for protected resources. The City would use its
land-use regulatory authority to fully implement the provisions of the HMP during project review, and would
follow the project processing implementation procedures as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.210,
Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements.
Cultural Resources
During construction activities, CMWD would comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California
State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, upon unintentional discovery or disturbance of human remains. California
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance will occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be met in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will
conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), if any,
identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to
provide technical assistance to the MLD, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human
remains.
Geology
The design of the project components would implement the relevant requirements of the Uniform Building Code
(UBC), the California Building Code (CBC), and the Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction, as
J ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-1
11optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 160 of 223
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
updated or amended, and California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, "Guidelines for
Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California." The CBC provides a minimum seismic standard for certain
building designs. Chapter 23 of the CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety. Chapter 33 of the CBC
contains specific requirements pertaining to site demolition, excavation, and construction to protect people and
property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapter 70
of the CBC regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. In addition, construction activities
are subject to federal and state occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulatiqns (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations
[CCR]) and in Section A33 of the CBC. California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117,
"Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," provides guidance for the evaluation and
mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for project components within designated zones of required
investigations.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction activities would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California's Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
RWQCB, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA
and the NPDES program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and
the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of
Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San
Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4
permit). Project components not falling within the triggering coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be
subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to
enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For Phase Ill project covered under the
General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD
would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prescribing Best Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring, inspection,
and record keeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water
discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The
implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control
measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms,
straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control
the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff, and may include measures to
minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering
surface water runoff, such as the following:
• Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in
the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive
areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized.
• Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active
construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish
grading and permanent landscaping.
• Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural
channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is
managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels.
• Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the
project components and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents.
• Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are
detained (e.g., siltation basins).
I I\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-2
£optombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 161 of 223
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATUR ES
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Construction and operation of the project components would be conducted in compliance with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, management, handling, storage, release reporting
and response actions, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and
hazardous waste. These laws include:
• U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which provides the 'cradle
to grave' regulation of hazardous wastes; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq .), commonly known as the "superfund" law addressing
remediation of contaminated sites.
• U.S. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 5101 et seq.), which governs hazardous
materials transportation on U.S. roadways.
• California Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.) and Hazardous
Substances Account Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 25300 et seq.).
• California Proposition 65, formally known as "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of
1986" (Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, Sections 25249.5 through 25249.13), requiring persons and
entities doing business in California using specific listed chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or
reproductive harm or birth defects to provide a clea r and reasonable warning to individuals entering the
site regarding the presence of such chemicals, and the implementing regulations for such laws.
• County of San Diego Consolidated Fire Code, which regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements
for hazardous materials at fixed facilities.
During construction, these laws govern the manner in which hazardous materials may be transported, used,
stored, and disposed of as well as the handling and disposal of demolition debris containing hazardous waste.
During operations, these laws govern the use, management, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials
and the management, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes.
Agency /Department
State Agencies
State Water Resources
Control Board, Regional
Water Quality Control
Board
California Coastal
Commission
California De12artment
of Trans12ortation
Local Agencies
City of Vista
City of Carlsbad
City of Oceanside
I ATKINS
Table 1 Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals
Permit/ Approval Action Associated With or Required For
General Construction Activity Storm Water Storm Water discharges associated with
Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 DWQ construction activity.
Waste Discharge Requirements {Water Code Discharge of wa ste that might affect groundwater
13000 et seq.) or surface water (point/nonpoint-source) quality.
Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a deferred
certification area in the coastal zone.
Encroachment Permit (California Streets and Consider issuance of 12ermits to cross state
Highwalls Code Sections 660 et seg.) highwalls.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Discretionary Permit Required for construction activities within the city
requiring discretionary approval.
Required for potential impacts to sensitive species
Habitat Management Plan Take Permit or habitats covered by the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan.
Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a coastal zone.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-3
September 19, 2012
Novem ber 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 162 of 223
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
Project Design and Construction Features
The CMWD has incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design
that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The Phase Ill project would
incorporate the following project design features.
Aesthetics
The following measures would be implemented into the design and construction of the Phase Ill project to
minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase Ill project:
• Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal.
• Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to those depicted on construction drawings.
• All roadway features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, etc) and structures within state and
private rights-of-way will be protected, maintained in a temporary condition, or restored.
• Disturbed areas will be restored following construction consistent with original site conditions and
surrounding vegetation. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by
CMWD or the City, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by CMWD or the City
to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CIP pipeline projects that would require trenching or
that would require the temporary removal of concrete or asphalt, the disturbed area will be repaved to
be consistent with the existing material.
Air Quality
The following BMPs would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant
emissions during construction of Phase Ill project:
• Water or dust control agents will be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt stockpiles
as necessary to prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne. All soil to be stockpiled
over 30 days will be protected with a secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent windblown dust.
• Covering/tarping will occur on all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways unless additional
moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport.
• Soil handling operations will be suspended when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. The construction
supervisor will have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating wind speed.
• Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadway will be swept
or vacuumed and disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension of particulate matter
caused by vehicle movement. During periods of soil export or import, when there are more than six trips
per hour, dirt removal from paved surfaces will be done at least twice daily.
• Disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as work in the area is complete.
• Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply wherever feasible, to avoid or minimize
the use of engine-driven generators.
• Air filters on construction equipment engines will be maintained in clean condition according to
manufacturers' specifications.
• The construction contractor will comply with an approved traffic control plan to reduce non-project traffic
congestion impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with existing traffic and the prevention
of truck queuing around local sensitive receptors will be incorporated into this plan.
• Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences.
• Trucks and equipment will not idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-4
~oplombor 19, 2Ql 2
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 163 of 223
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJ ECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
Biological Resources
The BMPs identified in the Carlsbad HMP would be implemented during the construction and operation of projects
to minimize potential effects on biological resources:
• Use BMPs to prevent pollution generated by construction activities from entering surface and
groundwater. BMPs will also ensure that non-stormwater discharges are not discharged into stormwater
drainage systems. BMPs may include:
Regulatory measures such as erosion control ordinances and floodplain restrictions.
Structural measures such as detention or retention basins, filters, weirs, check dams, or drainage
diversions.
Vegetative controls that reduce volume and accomplish pollutant removal by a combination of
filtration, sedimentation, and biological uptake.
Maintenance of pump stations, sewer lines, ~nd stormwater conveyance systems.
Cultural practices such as restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer applications, storage or disposal of
toxic chemicals, or washing of vehicles or equipment in areas that can drain to the estuary.
Public education programs that educate residences about proper disposal of oil or chemicals and that
provide opportunities (e.g. designated locations) for residents to properly dispose of contaminants.
• For clearing, grading, and other construction activities within the watershed, ensure that proper irrigation
and stormwater runoff mitigation measures are employed to reduce sediment loads and to prevent
contamination from pesticide, fertilizers, petroleum products, and other toxic substances.
• Restrict or limit recreational or other activities within 200 feet of important forage, breeding, and roosting
areas.
• Require attenuation measures for activities that generate noise levels greater than 60 dBA if occurring
within 200 feet of important breeding habitat during the nesting season.
• Restrict construction hours to daytime hours that do not require the use of construction lighting.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
The following procedure for unintentional disturbance of cultural resources will be implemented to minimize
impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources during construction of Phase Ill project:
• If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during CIP project construction, or if evidence of an
archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered, all ground-disturbing activity
will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD
to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist retained by the City or CMWD
for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. No further grading will occur in the area of the
discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological
artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation will be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by
the City or CMWD where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Geology and Soils
The following measures will be implemented into the construction and operation of Phase Ill project to minimize
potential risks from geologic and soil hazards:
• A site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each CIP
project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil, whic~ would determine the risk to
the project associated with fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, lan~·slides, and expansive soils. The
geotechnical investigations will describe site-specific conditions and make recommendations that will be
incorporated into the construction specifications for the CIP project. Recommendations may include, but
would not be limited to the following typical measures:
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-5
September 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 164 of 223
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill.
Remove loose, unconsolidated soils and replace with properly compacted fill soils, or apply other
design stabilization features.
For thicker deposits, implement an applicable compaction technique such as dynamic compaction or
compaction piles.
Perform in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics.
For landslides, implement applicable techniques such as stabilization; remedial grading and removal
of landslide debris; or avoidance.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following measures would be implemented into the construction to minimize potential effects related to
hazards and hazardous materials:
• Fire safety information will be disseminated to construction crews during regular safety meetings. Fire
management techniques will be applied during project construction as deemed necessary by the lead
agency and depending on-site vegetation and vegetation of surrounding areas.
• A brush management plan will be incorporated during project construction by the City, CMWD, or a
contractor, as necessary. Construction within areas of dense foliage during dry conditions will be avoided,
when feasible.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of project components to
minimize potential effects to hydrology and water quality:
• A construction spill contingency plan will be prepared for new facilities in accordance with County
Department of Environmental Health regulations and retained on site by the construction manager. If soil
is contaminated by a spill, the soil will be properly removed and transported to a legal disposal site.
• If groundwater is encountered and dewatering is required, then the groundwater will be disposed of by
pumping to the sanitary sewer system or discharging to the storm drain system according to the
conditions of the appropriate discharge permit.
Noise
The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of the project components to
minimize noise effect to surrounding neighborhoods:
• Heavy equipment will be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences.
• Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators and compressors, will be maintained in proper
operating condition and will be equipped with manufacturers' standard noise control devices or better
(e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging, and/or engine enclosures).
• Construction work, including on-site equipment maintenance and repair, will be limited to the hours
specified in the noise ordinance of the affected jurisdiction.
• Electrical power will be sueplied from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, in order to avoid or
minimize the use of engine-driven generators.
• Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences.
• Operating equipment will be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise
regulations.
• If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices will be
powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine.
• CMWD or their construction contractors will provide advance notice, between two and four weeks prior
to construction, by mail to all residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. For projects
that would require pile driving or blasting, noticing will be provided to all residents or property owners
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-6
September l \l, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 165 of 223
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
within 600 feet of the alignment. The announcement will state specifically where and when construction
will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice will be made,
either in person or by mail.
• CMWD will identify and provide a public liaison person before and during construction to respond to
concerns of neighboring residents about noise and other construction disturbance. The CMWD will also
establish a program for receiving questions or complaints during cm1struction and develop procedures for
responding to callers. Procedures for reaching the public liaison officer via telephone or in person will be
included in notices distributed to the public in accordance with the information above.
Transportation/Traffic
The following measures would be implemented during construction of the Phase Ill project to minimize traffic
effects to surrounding neighborhoods:
• Prior to construction, the City will prepare a traffic control plan and coordinate with the cities of
Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos to address traffic during construction of project components within the
public right-of-ways of the affected jurisdiction(s), including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The
traffic control plan will include signage and flagmen when necessary to allow the heavy equipment to
utilize residential streets. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
school hours and emergency service providers regarding construction times.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-7
£eptember 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 166 of 223
I ATKINS
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-8
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 167 of 223
Appendix B
Sensitive Biological Resources Tables
Sensitive Natural Communities Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Global State MHCP
Community Rank111 Rank121 Habitat Group131 Mitigation Ratio141
Non-native grassland G4 54 E 0.5:1
Valley needlegrass grassland Gl 53.1 B 3:1
Diegan coastal sage scrub G3 53.1 C 2:1
Diegan coastal sage -chaparral scrub G3 53.2 C 2:1
Chamise chaparral G4 54 D 1:1
Scrub oak chaparral G3 53.3 D 1:1
Southern maritime chaparral Gl 51.1 B 3:1
Southern mixed chaparral G4 54 D 1:1
Coast live oak woodland G4 54 B 3:1
Southern coastal live oak riparian forest G3 54 A 3:1 (No Net Loss)
Southern riparian forest G4 54
Southern riparian scrub G3 53.2
Coastal and valley freshwater marsh G3 52.1
San Diego mesa claypan vernal pool G2 52.1 A 5:1
(1)
(2)
(3)
Global Rank-The global rank is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range.
Gl = Critically Imperiled-At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity, very ~teep declines, or other factors. Less
than 6 viable element occurrences or less than 1,000 individuals or less than 2,000 acres. G2 = Imperiled-At high risk of
extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. Estimated 6-20 viable
occurrences or 1,000-3,000 individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres. G3 = Vulnerable-At moderate risk of extinction due to a
restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
Estimated 21-80 occurrences or 3,000-10,000 individuals or 10,000-50,000 acres. G4 = Apparently Secure-Uncommon
but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. This rank is clearly lower than G3 but
factors exist to cause some concern; i.e., there is some threat, or somewhat narrow habitat.
State Rank-The state rank refer to the imperilment status only within California's State boundaries.
Sl = Critically Imperiled-Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) such as
very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. Less than 6 occurrences or less
than 1,000 individuals or less than 2,000 acres. Sl.1 = very threatened; Sl.2 = threatened; Sl.3 = no current threats
known.
S2 = Imperiled-Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines,
or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. Estimated 6-20 occurrences or
1,000-3,000 individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres. S2.1 = very threatened; S2.2 = threatened; S2.3 = no current threats
known. S3 = Vulnerable-Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer),
recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Estimated 21-80 occurrences or
3,000-10,000 individuals or 10,000 -50,000 acres. S3.1 = very threatened; S3.2 = threatened; S3.3 = no current threats
known; S4 = Apparently Secure-Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other
factors.
MHCP Rank-Habitat types located within the planning area of the MHCP have been assigned to Groups A-F based on the
sensitivity and range of habitat within the planning area boundaries. Generally, Group A habitats are the most sensitive
and Group F habitats are the least sensitive.
141 Mitigation ratios may increase or decrease depending on the resources present and where the impact and mitigation is
proposed, as approved by the regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdiction in which the impact and mitigation occurs.
Source: CNDDB 2012; CNPS 2010; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al. 1998
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-1
September 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 168 of 223
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State CNPS
Common Name Scientific Name Status111 Status121 List131 General Habitat Associations
NON-VASCULAR
bottle liverwort Sphaerocarpos drewei 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
California screw moss Tortu/a californica 18.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland.
Campbell's liverwort Geothallus tuberosus lB.l Coastal scrub, vernal pools.
coastal triquetrella Triquetrella californica 18.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub.
Shevock's copper moss Schizymenium shevockii 18.2 Cismontane woodland.
ashy spike-moss Selaginella cinerascens 4.2 Coastal sage scrub, chaparral.
Fern
California adder's-tongue Ophiog/ossum lusitanicum 4.2 Chaparral, grasslands, vernal pools.
fern ssp. californicum
Angiosperms -Monocotyledons
California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica FE SE 18.1 Vernal pools.
Orcutt's brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii 18.1 Vernal pools, valley and foothill g~assland,
closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland, chaparral, meadows.
San Diego goldenstar Mui/la clevelandii 18.l Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
Shaw's agave Agave shawii 2.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub.
thread-leaved brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia FT SE 18.1 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools.
Angiosperms -Dicotyledons
Blochman's dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. 18.1 Coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, valley
blochmaniae and foothill grassland.
California adolphia Adolphia ca/ifornica 2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
chaparral sand-verbena Abronia villosa var. aurita 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
cliff spurge Euphorbia misera 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub.
Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. 18.l Coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and
cou/teri foothill grassland, vernal pools.
Dean's milk-vetch Astraga/us deanei 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest.
decumbent goldenbush lsocoma menziesii var. lB.2 Coastal scrub.
decumbens
Del Mar manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa FE 18.1 Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest.
ssp. crassifo/ia
Del Mar Mesa sand aster Corethrogyne filaginifo/ia 18.l Chaparral, coastal scrub.
var. linifolia
dwarf burr (San Diego) Ambrosia pumila FE 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
ambrosia grassland.
Encinitas baccharis Baccharis vanessae FT SE 18.1 Chaparral.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-2
September l 9, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 169 of 223
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
Engelmann oak
Gambel's water cress
little mousetail
many-stemmed dudleya
Moran's navarretia
mud nama
Nuttall's scrub oak
Orcutt's hazardia
Orcutt's linanthus
Orcutt's spineflower
Palmer's goldenbush
Parry's tetracoccus
prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
Rainbow manzanita
Robinson's pepper-grass
round-leaved filaree
San Diego barrel cactus
San Diego bur-sage
San Diego button-celery
San Diego marsh-elder
San Diego sagewort
San Diego thorn-mint
smooth tarplant
snake cholla
ATKINS
Federal State CNPS
Scientific Name Status(1l Status(Zl List(3l General Habitat Associations
Quercus engelmannii 4.2 Chaparral, coast live oak woodland,
grassland.
Nasturtium gambelii FE ST 18.1 Marshes and swamps.
Myosurus minimus ssp. 3.1 Vernal pools.
a pus
Dudleya multicaulis 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland.
Navarretia fossalis FT 18.1 Vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes and
swamps, playas.
Noma stenocarpum 2.2 Marshes and swamps.
Quercus dumasa lB.l Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral,
coastal scrub.
Hazardia orcuttii FC ST 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Linanthus orcuttii 18.3 Chaparral.
Chorizanthe orcuttiana FE SE 18.1 Coastal scrub, chaparral, closed-cone
coniferous forest.
Ericameria palmeri ssp. 2.2 ' Coastal scrub, chaparral.
palmeri
Tetracoccus dioicus 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Navarretia prostrata 18.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools.
Arctostaphylos 18.1 Chaparral.
rainbowensis '
Lepidium virginicum var. 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
robinsonii
California macrophylla 18.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill
grassland.
Ferocactus viridescens 2.1 Chapparal, Diegan coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
Ambrosia chenopodiifolia 2.1 Coastal scrub mostly associated with
maritime succulent scrub.
Eryngium aristulatum var. FE SE 18.1 Vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and
parish ii foothill grassland.
Iva hayesiana 2.2 Marshes and swamps, playas.
Artemisia palmeri 4.2 Riparian, wetland, adjacent uplands.
Acanthomintha ilicifolia FT SE 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, verna I pools.
Centromadia pungens ssp. 18.1 Valley and foothill grassland, chenopod
laevis scrub, meadows, playas, riparian woodland.
Opuntia californica var. 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
ca/ifornica
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-3
September 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 170 of 223
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State CNPS
Common Name Scientific Name Status111 Status121 List131 General Habitat Associations
southern tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. lB.l Marshes and swamps (margins), valley and
austra/is foothill grassland.
Southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus var. 4.2 Riparian, wetlands, vernal pools.
leopoldii
summer holly Comarostaphylis lB.2 Chaparral.
diversifo/ia ssp.
diversifolia
variegated dudleya Dudleya variegata 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill grassland.
wart-stemmed ceanothus Ceanothus verrucosus 2.2 Chaparral.
Western dicondra Dichondra occidentalis 4.2 Coastal sage scrub.
willowy monardella Monardel/a viminea FE SE 18.1 Coastal scrub/alluvial ephemeral washes
with adjacent coastal scrub, chaparral, or
sycamore woodland.
111 Federal Status-FE= Federally Endangered; FT= Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD= Delisted
121 State Status-SE= State Endangered; ST= State Threatened
!3l CNPS-lA = Plants presumed extinct in California; 18 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;
2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; 3 = Plants in need of more
information; 4 = Plants of limited distribution. x.l = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened or
high degree and immediacy ofthreat). x.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened}.
x.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
Source: CDFG 2012; CNPS 2012; Consortium 2010; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al.1998
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-4
September 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 171 of 223
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
INVERTEBRATES
Crustaceans
Riverside fairy shrimp
San Diego fairy shrimp
Insects
Hermes copper butterfly
Harbison's dun skipper
Monarch butterfly
AMPHIBIANS
Arroyo toad
Coast Range newt
Western spadefoot
REPTILES
Coast (San Diego) horned
lizard
Coast patch-nosed snake
Coastal western whiptail
Coronado skink
Northern red-diamond
rattlesnake
Orange-throated whiptail
Rosy boa
San Diego ringneck snake
ATKINS
Federal State
Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations
Streptocephalus woottoni FE Found in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins
in grassland and coastal sage scrub habitats.
Branchinecta FE Vernal pools.
sandiegonensis
Lycaena hermes Found in southern mixed chaparral and coastal sage
scrub at western edge of Laguna mountains.
Euphyes vestries harbisoni Riparian woodland, riparian scrub, oak woodland.
Danaus p/exippus Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves, such as
eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and cypress trees where
nectar and water sources are available.
Bufo californicus FE SSC Semi-arid regions near washes, rivers, or intermittent
streams, including valley-foothill and desert riparian
areas and desert washes.
Taricha torosa torosa SSC Lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1
km to breed in ponds, reservoirs, coastal drainages,
or slow moving streams.
Spea hammondii SSC Occurs primarily in ponds located in grassland
habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill
hardwood woodlands.
Phrynosoma coronatum SSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral in arid and
(blainvillii population) semi-arid climate conditions.
Salvadora hexalepis SSC Brushy or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern
virgultea California.
Aspidoscelis tigris Found in deserts and semiarid areas with sparse
stejnegeri vegetation and open areas and in woodland and
riparian areas.
Eumeces skiltonianus SSC Found in grassland, chaparral, pinyon-juniper and
interparieta/is juniper sage woodland, and pine-oak and pine
forests.
Crotalus ruber ruber SSC Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland, and desert
areas from coastal San Diego County to the eastern
slopes of the mountains.
Aspidoscelis hyperythra SSC Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and
valley-foothill hardwood habitats.
Charina trivirgata Found in desert and chaparral habitats from the
coast to the Mojave. Prefers moderate to dense
vegetation and rocky cover.
Diadophis punctatus Found in open, fairly rocky areas and in moist areas
similis near intermittent streams.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-5
September 19, 201 2
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 172 of 223
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
Silvery legless lizard
Southwestern pond turtle
Two-striped garter snake
BIRDS
American peregrine
falcon
Bank swallow
Belding's savannah
sparrow
Bell's sage sparrow
Burrowing owl
California horned lark
Coastal cactus wren
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Cooper's hawk
Double-crested
cormorant
Ferruginous hawk
Golden eagle
Grasshopper sparrow
Large-billed savannah
sparrow
Least Bell's vireo
Least bittern
ATKINS
Federal State
Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations
Annie/la pu/chra pu/chra SSC Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes,
chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy
washes, and stream terraces with sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks, where soil is moist.
Actinemys marmorata SSC Inhabits permanent or nearly permanent bodies of
pa/Iida water in many habitat types below 6,000 feet.
Thamnophis hammondii SSC Found in or near permanent fresh water and often
along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.
Falco peregrinus anatum FD SE Found near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water or
on cliffs, banks, dunes, or mounds.
Riparia riparia ST Nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats
west of the desert.
Passerculus SE Inhabits coastal salt marshes.
sandwichensis beldingi
Amphispiza be/Ii be/Ii WL Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands
of chamise. Found in coastal sage scrub in south of
range.
Athene cunicularia SSC Open, dry annual, or perennial grasslands, deserts
and scrublands characterized by low-growing
vegetation.
Eremophila alpestris actia WL Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows,
open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali
flats.
Campylorhynchus SSC Coastal sage scrub with tall Opuntia cactus for
brunneicapil/us nesting and roosting.
sandiegensis
Polioptila californica FT SSC Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas,
californica and on slopes.
Accipiter cooperii WL Open, interrupted, or marginal type woodland. Nest
sites mainly found in riparian growths of deciduous
trees in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains.
Pha/acrocorax auritus WL Found on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along
lake margins in the interior of the State.
Buteo regalis WL Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low
foothills, and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats.
Aquila chrysaetos FD SE,SFP Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats,
and desert.
Ammodramus SSC Favors native grasslands with a mix of grasses, forbs,
savannarum and scattered shrubs.
Passerculus SSC Salt marsh.
sandwichensis rostratus
Vireo be/Iii pusillus FE SE Summer resident of southern California in low
riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms;
below 2000 ft.
lxobrychus exilis SSC Found in marshlands and borders of ponds and
reservoirs which provide ample cover.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-6
September 19, 201 2
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 173 of 223
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
Light-footed clapper rail
Loggerhead shrike
Long-eared owl
Northern harrier
Osprey
Prairie falcon
Southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Tricolored blackbird
Western snowy plover
White-faced ibis
White-tailed kite
Yellow warbler
Yellow-breasted chat
MAMMALS
American badger
Hoary bat
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Pacific pocket mouse
Pallid bat
ATKINS
Federal State
Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations
Rallus longirostris levipes FE SE Sal marsh.
Lanius ludovicianus SSC Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, joshua
tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oasis', scrub
and washes.
Asia otus SSC Riparian bottomlands with tall willows, cottonwoods,
or coast live oaks adjacent to open land with ample
prey.
Circus cyaneus SSC Coastal salt and fresh-water marsh. Nest and forage
in grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to
mountain marshes.
Pandion haliaetus WL Ocean shore, bays, fresh-water lakes, and larger
streams.
Falco mexicanus WL Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly.
Aimophila ruficeps WL Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed
canescens chaparral.
Empidonax trail/ii extimus FE SE Riparian woodlands.
Agelaius tricolor SSC Requires open water, protected nesting substrate,
and foraging area with available insect prey.
Charadrius alexandrinus FT SSC Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large
nivosus alkali lakes.
Plegadis chihi WL Shallow fresh-water marsh.
Elanus leucurus SFP Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered
oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to
deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging.
Dendroica petechia SSC Prefers riparian plant associations such as willows,
brewsteri cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for
nesting and foraging. Also, found in montane
shrubbery in open conifer forests.
lcteria virens SSC Summer resident that inhabits riparian thickets of
willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses.
Taxidea taxus SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub,
forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils.
Lasiurus cinereus Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access
to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges
for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to
large trees.
Chaetodipus fa/lax fa/lax SSC Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, and
sagebrush.
Perognathus FE SSC Found within 4 km of the coast on fine-grained sandy
longimembris pacificus substrates in coastal sage scrub, coastal strand, and
river alluvium.
Antrozous pa/lidus SSC Found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands,
and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-7
September 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 174 of 223
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations
San Diego black-tailed Lepus ca/ifornicus SSC Found in coastal sage scrub with intermediate
jackrabbit bennettii canopy stages of shrub habitats and open shrub I
herbaceous and tree I herbaceous edges.
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma /epida SSC Moderate to dense canopies of coastal scrub.
intermedia Abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes.
Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC Found in moist coastal forest to semi-desert
scrublands, near riparian areas and wetlands.
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC Found in many open and semi-arid to arid habitats,
ca/ifornicus including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, and chaparral.
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC Prefers riparian areas dominated by cottonwoods,
oaks, sycamores, and walnuts.
Western small-footed Myotis ciliolabrum Found in a wide range of habitats near water,
myotis including arid wooded, brushy uplands, and open
stands in forests and woodlands. Seeks cover in
caves, buildings, mines and crevices
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian,
desert washes, and palm oasis habitats.
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Optimal habitats are open forests and woodlands
with sources of water over which to feed.
Southern mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Variety of habitats over a broad range.
111 Federal Status -FE= Federally Endangered; FT= Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD= De listed
121 State Status -SE= State Endangered; ST= State Threatened; SFP = State Fully Protected; SSC= State Species of Special
Concern; WL = State Watch List
Source: CDFG 2012; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al. 1998
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-8
September 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 175 of 223
Attachment B
Biological Resources St udy Addendum
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 176 of 223
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
March 30, 2018
Lindsey Stephenson, P.E., Senior Engineer
City of Carlsbad Public Works
5950 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
HELIX
Environmental Planning
KJC-27
Subject: Addendum Report to the Biological Resources Study and Adopted IS/MND findings for
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Dear Ms. Stephenson:
This document is an update to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted IS/MND)
EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012(SCH No. 2012091049) findings for the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD) Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Approved Project) located in the City of Carlsbad
(city), San Diego County, California. The IS/MND was adopted by the Board of Directors of the CMWD on
November 27, 2012. A focused biological resources study was prepared May 15, 2013 by HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX), subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND (HELIX 2013). The
biological resources study provided specific information necessary in fulfilling State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) CEQA-Plus requirements and CMWD's Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Program (SRF Program) application, which,requires demonstration of project conformance with federal
policy pertaining to biological resources.
As addressed in the Adopted IS/MND, the Approved Project components have been designed to be
restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility right-of-way (ROW) areas,
access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential,
and other mixed-use developments. The IS/MND determined that the areas being considered for
construction of Approved Project components do not support high quality biological resources, and the
Approved Project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive biological resources, including
those resources protected under federal policy. However, several of the Approved Project components
were determined to occur adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could
support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, and potential
indirect impacts to these resources (e.g., night lighting, construction noise and vibration, runoff, and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel) were determined to occur during
construction. Potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures
Bio-lA through Bio-lF as identified in the IS/MND and focused biological resources study.
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 177 of 223
Attachment A
Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office Species Status List
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 195 of 223
FEDERALLY LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND DELJSTED TAXA IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CARLSBAD FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
LISTING
FEDERAL REGISTER RECOVERY DISTRIBUTION 12)
Taxon Lead State Fed DOCS Scientific Name Common Name Abbrev. Office Status Sta~sl Date I Crit;ca[ I
Other I Plan l:;e~~:;l:++++++++M Listed H~tat
PLANTS' 58 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 48 TAXA
Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Dieeo thommint ACIL CFWO SE FT 13-0ct-98 f-08 2009 8 X
Acanthoscyphus parishii var.
goodmaniana ( Oxytheca p.
var. i,.)rJl Cushenbury oxytheca ACPAGO CFWO FE 24-Aug-94 f-02 D97 2009 9C X
Acmispon dendroideus var.
traskiae (Lotus d. subsp. Reel ass
traskiae l f 11 San Clemente Island lotus ACDETR CFWO SE FT 11-Aug-77 '6-JuJ-13 F 84 2012 15 X
Allium munzii Munz's onion ALMU CFWO ST FE 13-0ct-98 fr-13 2013 BC X
Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia AMPU CFWO FE 2-Jul-02 f-10 2010 IIC X X
Arctostaphylos glandulosa
subso. crassifolia Del Mar manzanita ARGLCR CFWO FE 7-0ct-96 2010 6C X
Arenaria valudicola marsh sandwort ARPA VFWO SE FE 3-Aue-93 F 98 2008 2 X X
CHMS
Astra,!alus albens Cushenburv milk-vetch ASAL CFWO FE 24-Auo-94 f-02 2003 D97 2009 8C X
Astra~alus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch ASBR VFWO FE 29-Jan-97 f-06 F99 2009 2 X X X
Reel ass
nQ!
Lane Mountain milk-warranted
Astrar!alus iaer!erianus vetch ASJA CFWO FE 6-0ct-98 fr-JI 14-05-02 2008 5 X
Astragalus lenriginows var. Coachella Valley m;Jk-
coachellae vetch ASLECO CFWO FE 6-0ct-98 f-13 2009 6C X
Delistnot
Astragalus magdalenae var. I~
oeirsonii Peirson's milk-vetch ASMAPE CFWO SE FT 6-0ct-98 fr-08 J 7-Jul-08 2008 9 X
Astragalus pycnostachyus var.
lanosissimus Ventura marsh milk-vetch ASPYLA VFWO SE FE 21-Mav-Ol f-04 2010 6C X X
Astragalus tener var. titi coastal dunes milk-vetch AS TETI VFWO SE FE 12-Aug-98 FOS 2009 6C X X
Astra~alus tricarinatus triple-ribbed milk-vetch ASTR CFWO FE 6-0 ct-98 2009 14 X X
Atriplex corona/a var. San Jacinto Valley
notatior crownscale ATCONO CFWO FE 13-0ct-98 fr-13 2012 9C X
Baccharis vanessae Encinitas baccharis BAVA CFWO SE FT 7-0ct-96 2011 SC X
Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberrv BENE CFWO SE FE 13-0ct-98 f-08 2009 8 X X X X
Brodiaea filifoha thread-leaved brodiaea BRFI CFWO SE FT 13-0 ct-98 f-11 2009 8C X xx X X
Castilleia dnerea ash-2:rav naintbrush CACI CFWO FT 14-Seo-98 f-07 2013 8 X
San Clemente Island Downlist
Cash/Jeja grisea paintbrush CAGR CFWO SE FT I l-Aue-77 26-Jul-13 F84 2012 14 X
Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus CEOP CFWO SE FT 13-0ct-98 f-07 2013 8C X
Catalina Island mountain-
Cercocarous traskiae mahogany CETR CFWO SE FE 8-Aue-97 2007 8 X
Chloropyron maritimum
subsp. maritimum
(Cordylanthus maritimus
subsp. marilimus)fl 1 salt marsh bird's-beak CHMAM CFWO SE FE 28-Seo-78 F 85 2009 9 X X X
Chorizanthe orcuttiana Orcutt's soineflower CHOR CFWO SE FE 7-0ct-96 201 4 5 X
CNOR
Update
Chorizanthe panyi var. San Fernando Valley 22-Nov-
femandina soineflower CHPAFE VFWO SE FC 25-0ct-99 13 NA X X
Deinandra conjugens
Hemizoniac.) fll Otav tarclant DECO CFWO SE FT 13-0ct-98 f-02 F 04 2009 8C X
Delphinium variegatum San Clemente Island
subsp. kinkiense larkspur DEYAK! CFWO SE FE I l-Au[!-77 F 84 2008 15 X
slender-homed
Dodecahema /eptoceras fl l spineflower DOLE CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-87 2010 7C X X X
Dud/eya cymosa subsp. Santa Monica Mountains
ovatifolia dud.1eya DUCYO\ VFWO FT 29-Jan-97 F99 2009 6 X X
L~ouna Beach live-
Dud/eya stolonifera forever DUST CFWO ST FT 13-0ct-98 2010 8 X
Eremogone ursina (Arenaria
ursina) fil Bear Valley sandwort ERUR CFWO FT 14-Sen-98 f-07 2008 8 X
Eriastmm densifolium subsp. Santa Ana River woolly-
sanctomm star ERDESA CFWO SE FE 28-Sep-87 2010 6C X X X
CHMS
Erif!eron parishii Parish's daisy ERPA CFWO FT 24-Aun-94 f-02 2003 D 97 2009 8C X X
Eriogonum kennedyi var. southern mountain wild
austromontanum buckwheat ERKEAU CFWO FT 14-Seo-98 f-07 2008 9 X
Eriogonum ovalifolium var. CHMS
vinewn Cushenburv buckwheat EROVVI CFWO FE 24-Aurt-94 f-02 2003 D97 2009 9C X
Eryngium aristulatum var.
narishii San Die1?0 button celerv ERARPA CFWO SE FE 3-Aue-93 F98 2010 9C X X
Fremontodendron mexicanum Mexican flannelbush FRME CFWO SR FE 13-0ct-98 f-07 2009 8 X
Grinde/ia fraxino-pra.lensis Ash Meadows 1?umolant GRFRPR NFWO SR FT 20-Mav-85 f-85 F90 2008 14 X
He/ianthemum f!reenei Island rush-rose HEGR VFWO FT 13-Jul-97 FOO 2010 14 X
San Clemente Island
Lithonhraf!1na maximum woodland star LIMA CFWO SE FE 8-Aue-97 F84 2007 2 X
1Malacothamn11s c/ementinus San Clemente Island MACL CFWO SE FE I 1-Aug-77 Reel ass F 84 2012 BC X
bush-mallow llill ~
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status_ List%20.htm
Page 1 of 4
10/4/2017 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 196 of 223
Page 2 of 4
16-Mav-
11.
Monardella viminea (M.
/inoides Subsp. V.) rJ] willowy monardella MOVI CFWO SE FE IJ-Oct-98 fr-12 2012 8 X
Nasturtium gambelii (Rorippa
,rambe/ii) f1l Gambel's watercress NAGA VFWO ST FE 3-Au ,.93 F 98 2011 5 X X X X
Navarretiafossalis spreading navarretia NAFO CFWO FT 13-0ct-98 f-10 F 98 2009 8 X X X
Nitrovhila mohavensis Amareosa niterwort NIMO NFWO SE FE 20-Mav-85 f-85 F 90 2008 X
Eureka Valley evening-OECAEU CFWO SR FE Proposed
Oenothera califomica subsp. primrose Deli sting
eurekensis (0. avita subso. e.) 26-Aor-78 27-Feb-14 F 82 2007 6 X
Orc111tia califomica California Orcutt grass ORCA CFWO SE FE 3-Aug-93 F 98 2011 !JC X X X
Pentachaeta lyonii Lyon's pentachaeta PELY VFWO SE FE 29-Jan-97 f-06 F 99 2008 2C X
Physaria kingii subsp.
bemardina (Lesquerel/a k San Bernardino CHMS
subso. b.l Ill Mountains bladdemod PHKIBE CFWO FE 24-Auo-94 f-02 2003 D97 2009 9C X
Poa atropurpurea San Bernardino blue.e:rass POAT CFWO FE 14-Sep-98 f-08 2008 2 X X
Poeoevne abramsii San Dieeo mesa mint POAB CFWO SE FE 28-Seo-78 F98 2010 8C X
Pos!OI!vne n11di11sc11la Otav mesa mint PONU CFWO SE FE 3-Au•-93 F98 2010 2C X
Santa Cruz Island rock-
Sibarajilifolia cress SIFI CFWO FE 8-Aug-97 2012 11 X
Sidalcea pedata oedate checker-mallow SIPE CFWO SE FE 31 -Aug-84 F98 2011 SC X
Swallenia alexandrae Eureka Dune grass SWAL CFWO SR FE Proposed
delistin£?.
26-Anr-78 27-Feb-14 F-82 2007 6 X
Taraxac11m californicum California taraxacum TACA CFWO FE 14-Sep-98 f-08 2013 5 X
Thelypodium stenopetalum slender-petaled mustard THST CFWO SE FE 31 -Aug-84 F 98 2011 5C X
Trichostema austromontanum
subso. comvactum Hidden Lake bluecurls TRAUCO CFWO FT 14-Seo-98 nof-07 2013 15 X
Verbesina dissita hie-leaved crown beard VEDI CFWO ST FT 7-0ct-96 2010 !IC X
Yucca brevifolia Joshua tree YUBR
90 dav
findin11 I Sent 16
INVERTEBRATES• 10 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 9 TAXA
Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp VPFS SFWO FT 19-Sen-94 f-05 F05 2007 2C X
Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp SDFS CFWO FE 3-Feb-97 f-07 F 98 2008 8C XX
Danaus plexippus plexippus Monarch butterfly DAPLPL ROJ Pos. 90
DF to list
31-Dec-
2014 X XX xx X X X
RPO
Dinacoma caseyi Casev's June beetle CJB CFWO FE 22-Sen-J J f-11 2013 JJC X
Euvhilotes balloides allvni El Seeundo blue butterllv ESB CFWO FE l-Jun-76 o-77 F98 2008 9 X
Quino checkerspot
Euphydryas editha quino butterfly QCB CFWO FE 16-Jan-97 f-09 FOJ 2009 9C xx X X
Glaucopsyche lygdamus Palos Verdes blue
valosverdesensis butterllv PVB CFWO FE 2-Jul-80 f-80 F84 2014 6 X
Helminrhoglypta (coyote) Mohave shoulderband Pos. 90
Fref!f!i snail MSS CFWO DFtolist X
CAND
Assess
Lvcaena hermes Hermes conner butterflv HCB CFWO FC 2013 NA X
Laguna Mountains
Pv11ms mralis la5!lmae skiooer LMS CFWO FE l 6-Jan-97 f-06 2007 JC X
Rhaphiomidas tem1inatus Delhi Sands flower-
abdominalis lovine: flv DSF CFWO FE 23-Sep-93 F97 2008 6C X X
Streptocephalus wooltoni Riverside fairy shrimp RFS CFWO FE 3-Aur,.93 fr-12 F98 2008 8C X XX X
FISH• 9 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 2 TAXA
Catostomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker SAS CFWO SSC FT 12-Anr-00 f-10 D 14 2011 5C XX X X
Cvvrinodon macularius desert ouofish DEPU R02 SE FE J I-Mar-86 f-86 f 93 2010 2C X X X
Proposed
Reel ass
13-"rlar-
Eucvclo2obi11s newberrvi tidewater gobv TWG VFWO SSC FE 4-Feb-94 f-13 14 F 05 2007 7C X X
Gasterosteus aculeatus unarmored threespine
williamsoni stickleback UTS VFWO SE FE 13-0ct-70 wd-02 F 85 2009 6C X X X
Gila bicolor mohavensis Mohave tui chub MTC CFWO SE FE IJ-Oct-70 F84 2009 6 X
Gila ele~ans bonytail chub BOCH R06 SE FE 23-Anr-80 f-94 2002 2012 SC X X X
steelhead (southern
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss California ESU) SCSH NMFS SSC FE 5-Jan-06 f-05 F 12 3 X XX
Ptychochei/us lucius Colorado Pikeminnow COP! R06 SE FE 24-Jul-85 f-94 F 02 8C X X X
Xvrauchen texanus razorback sucker RASU R06 SE FE 23-0ct-91 f-94 2002 2012 JC X X X
AMPHIBIANS• 4 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR I TAXON
Anaxy111s californicus (B11/o .Proposed
microscaphus c.) [l] Reel ass
arroyo toad (a. Reopen
southwestern t.) ARTO VFWO SSC FE 16-Dec-94 f-11 17-0ct-14 F 99 1009 8 XX X X X
Batrachoseps major aridus
(B. a.) [I] desert slender salamander DSS CFWO SE FE 4-Jun-73 F 82 2014 6 X
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status_ List%20.htm 10/4/201 7 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 197 of 223
Page 3 of 4
IRanaboylii oothill yellow-legged FYLF ISFWO ~ X
~og ill:
petition to
list Jul--!-
2015
Rana draytonii (R. aurora d.)
11 California red-leeeed froe CRLF SFWO SSC FT 23-Mav-96 fr-10 F 02 SC X X X X X
Rana muscosa mountain yellow-legged
frog (southern California
DPS) MYLF CFWO SE FE 2-Jul-02 f-06 2012 3 X X X
Spea Pos. 90 hammondii or Scaphiopus ill: hammondii petition to
list Jul--1-
!western soadefoot toad WST SFWO 2015 X XX X X
REPTILES• 3 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR I TAXON
~ctinemys marmorata Western pond turtJe WIT CFWO Pos90
ill: petitlon to
list 10-
Apr-201 5 X XX X X
desert tortoise (Mojave
Govhems agassizii oooulation DPS) DETO NFWO ST FT 2-Anr-90 f-94 R I! 2010 12C X X X
Coachella Valley fringe-
Uma inornata toed lizard CVFTL CFWO SE FT 25-Seo-80 f-80 F 85 2010 SC X
I~ Delisted
I-Apr-
Xantusia riversiana island night lizard !NL CFWO NA DL l l-Aue-77 14· F 84 2012 14 X
BIRDS• 16 TAXA; CFWO LEAD FOR 7 TAXA
San Clemente sage
Amvhisviza be/Ii clementeae so arrow scss CFWO SSC FT 1 I-Auo-77 F 84 2009 9 X
Brachyramphus mamwratus marbled murrelet MAMU ROI SE FI 1-0ct-92 fr-10 f 97 2009 2C X X
western snowy plover
Charadrius nh1osus nivosus (Pacific Coast population
C. a/exandrlnus n.) fl 1 DPS) WSP AFWO SSC FI 5-Mar-93 fr-12 f 07 2006 3C X xx
Reopen
£Q!!!!!!m1
yellow-billed cuckoo pch 12-
Coccvzus americanus western DPS\ YBCU SFWO SE T l-Oct-14 o-14 Nov-14 NA X X X X X X
southwestern willow
Empidonax trail/ii extimus flycatcher SWFL R02 SE FE 27-Feb-95 fr-13 F 02 2014 3C X xx X X X
Gymnogyps califomianus California condor CACO VFWO SE FE l l-Mar-67 f-77 F96 2013 4C X X X
PDM Plan
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle BAEA R03 SE DL 14-Feb-78 04-Jun-JO F 86 NA X xx X X X
San Clemente loggerhead
Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi shrike SCLS CFWO SSC FE ll-Aug-77 F 84 2009 12 X
Draft
PDM Plan
Pe/ecanus occidentalis brown pelican BRPE VFWO DL 4-Feb-85 30-Sen-09 F 83 2007 NA X XX X X X
Phoebastria albatms short-tailed albatross STAL RO? SSC FE 31-Jul-OO F 08 2009 8 X xx
Me/ozone cr;ssalis Proposed
eremophilus (Pipilo crissalis Delist04-
eremovhilusJ Invo California towhee INCT CFWO SE FT 2-Seo-87 Nov-13 F 98 2008
Proposed
Delist
Polioptila ca/ifomica coasta1 California Dec-31-
californica enatcatcher CAGN CFWO SSC FI 30-Mar-93 f-07 2014 2010 9C X xx X X
light-footed Ridgway's
Rallus obsoletus le1ripes (R rail (light-footed clapper
lom!irostris /.) rail) LFCR CFWO SE FE 8-Mar-69 F 85 2009 6 X xx
Ral/us obsoletus yumanensis Yuma Ridgway's rail
R lom!irostris v.) (Yuma claooer rail) YUCR R02 ST FE JJ -Mar-67 D 10 2006 6 X X X
Stemula antillarum browni
(Stema a. b.) [I] California least tern CLT CFWO SE FE 8-Mar-69 F 85 2006 15C X X X X X
Vireo be/Iii vusillus least Bell's vireo LBV CFWO SE FE 2-Mav-86 f-94 D 98 2006 9C X X X X X X
MAMMALS*8TAXA;CFWOLEADFOR7TAXA
San Bernardino kangaroo
Dipodomys merriami parvus rat SBKR CFWO SSC FE 27-Jan-98 f-02 2009 6C X X X
Pos90D
Petition to
G/aucomys sabrlnus San Bernardino flying List
califomicus squirrel SBFS CFWO SSC NA l-Feb-12 NA X X
Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat SKR CFWO ST FE JO-Sep-88 12MF D 97 2011 11 X X X
delisting
DQ!
warranted
19-Aue-
lQ
https ://www _fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status _List%20_htm 10/4/2017 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 198 of 223
Terminate so
XPand
Trans
Enhvdra lutris nereis southern sea otter sso VFWO FP FT I 1-Au•-87 Plan FOJ 9C X X X
Microtus californicus
scirpensis Amargosa vole AMVO CFWO SE FE 15-Nov-84 f-84 F 97 2009 6 X
Nelson bighorn sheep
(Peninsular Range DPS;
Ovis canadensis nelsoni Peninsular bighorn sheep) PBS CFWO ST FE 18-Mar-98 f-09 FOO 2011 9C X X
Perognath11s longimembris
vacificus Pacific oocket mouse PPM CFWO SSC FE J-Feb-94 F 98 2010 6C X xx
Urocvon lirtoralis catalinae Santa Catalina Island fox CAIF CFWO ST FE 5-Mar-04 W-05 D 12 9 X
LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS
State Status: SE= endangere~ ST= threatened; sde = delisted; SR= rare; SSC= species of special concern
Federal Status: FE= endangered; Fr= threatened; FC = candidate for listing; P-= propose~ PW= proposaJ withdrawn; DL = delisted; PDM = post delisting monitoring
plan; X* = experimental population; 90D = 90-day finding; 12M = 12-month finding.
Clitical Habitat: p = Proposed; f= Final; pr = Proposed Revised; fr = Final Revised.
Recovery Plan: F = Final-year published, D = Draft-year published
X
Distribution <historical countv occurrences): LA= Los Angeles; 0 = Oranl!e; SD= San Diee.o; IN= Invo; KE= Kem; SB= San Bernardino; Riv = Riverside; Imo= Imoerie.l
• Plant names format: scientific name including synonym, if any, followed by common name in parentheses (e.g. A/limn uumzii (Munz's onion); Eremogo11e ursina
(Areuaria ursina) (Bear Valley sandwort)I Animal names format: common name including name of DPS, if any, followed by scientific name (including synonyms,
if any) in parentheses [e.g. Santa Ana sucker (CtLlastonu,s sautaanae); western snowy plover (Pacific Coast population DPS) (Charadrius uivosus uivosus (Clwradriu.s
alexa11drim,s uivosus))J
[II Current name, followed by name still listed in CFR in parentheses. Cite "current name (older name)" fonn in the beginning of a document but use current name
throu.cl10ut.
121 For soecies' distribution refer to the most recent 5-Year Review or utilize the "Distribution" link to access the ECOS Manner.
131 For species' critica1 habitat description and boundaries refer to the final critical habitat ru1e or utilize the "Critical Habitat" link to access the ECOS criticaJ habitat Mapper.
[41 RPN (Recovery Priority Number; distinctions relate to degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic rank, and conflict (NA= not applicable)
LIST REVISED July 6, 2015. SEND CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS TO JANE HENDRON (iane hendron(a)fws.gov, 760-431-9440)
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status_ List%20.htm
Page 4 of 4
10/4/2017 July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 199 of 223
Attachment C
Cultural Resource Inventory Addendum
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 200 of 223
March 26, 2018
Page 2 of7
the previous work and previously recorded resources intersecting and immediately surrounding the APE in
accordance with CEQA-Plus.
PROJECT SUMMARY AND LOCATION
The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at the existing CWRF,
located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California 92011. Figure 1 shows the proposed appended
segments. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) lies north and south of State Route 78 (SR-78) along the
Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansion Segment 7 (ES 7) is
located south of SR-78, west of College A venue, and northeast of Carlsbad Village Drive (Figure 2). The
new or relocated storage tank would be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site near the intersection of
Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road (Figure 3). New potable water pipelines would be installed in the
Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (see Figures 1 and 2).
Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases: Existing
(Phase I and Phase II), Phase III, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase III, would expand CMWD's
recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water
service agencies. The Phase III project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase
III project would expand the treatment capacity from 4.0 million gal. per day (mgd) to 8.0 mgd within the
CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase III project would also
install 81,000 ft. of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water
facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight
expansion segment locations throughout the project area.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The present Class I study consisted of a formal request for records of previously identified cultural resources
and studies on file at the SCIC. The records search was completed on April 12, 2013. The current
investigation also included a request for the NAHC in Sacramento to conduct a search of the Sacred Land
Files, which was completed on April 18, 2013 .
The resulting data has been used to assess:
• the extent of previously completed studies of cultural resources that intersect the currently proposed
appended Project APE;
• the number and character of previously recorded cultural resources intersecting the currently proposed
appended Project APE.
RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The records search conducted at the SCIC on April 12, 2013 was re-utilized for the current study as the
quarter-mile search radius applied in the original study is still adequate and applicable for the current
appended Project APE. A copy of the record search results from the SCIC is attached in Confidential
Appendix B of the original 2014 report (see Becker and Daniels 2014).
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 202 of 223
March 26, 2018
Page 3 of7
PREVIOUS REPORTS
As noted, 19 reports addressing portions of the currently proposed appended Project APE are identified in
the records search results (Table 1). The proposed expansion segments and facilities located in the area
covered by each of the previous studies are listed in the last column of the table. A listing of the remaining
previous cultural resource reports within the lf4-mi. radius of the APE but not intersecting it may be found
in Confidential Appendix B of the original 2014 report.
Table 1.
NADB
No.
Unfiled
1121129
1121984
1122296
1122374
1122598
1124111
1124229
1124263
1124895
1125055
1126094
1127411
1128739
1129240
1129361
1129571
Previous Cultural Resource Studies Overlapping the Appended Portions of
the Project APE
Portions of
Authors Date Title Appended APE
Addressed
Susan Hector 1981 Assessment of Archaeological Site SOM-W-133, 5 Carlsbad, California
Susan Hector 1985 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of 5 Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad.
WEST EC 1980 Regional Historic Preservation Study Tank D Services
Environmental 1973 Environmental Impact Report for the Planned 5 Impact Profiles Communitv -Carlsbad Palisades
Dennis 1992 Archaeological Test Report for Prehistoric Site Tank D Gallegos CA-SOl-6819, Carlsbad, CA.
Archaeological Evaluations at Calavera Hills SDI-
Sue Wade 1992 5416, Archaeological Testing at SDl-12470, SDI-5, 7
12471
Larry Draft Environmental Impact Report: Revised
1982 Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad, 5,7 See mans California
Charles Bull 1977 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Lake 5,7 Calvera Hills Plan Area
Brian F. Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of the
Mooney 1991 Carlsbad Zone 20 Specific Plan Area, Carlsbad, Tank D
Associates CA
Recon 1976 Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact 5 Information for Lake Calavara Hills, Units I-IV
RMW Paleo Cultural Resources Reconnaissance & Evaluation
Associates 1998 of the Hadley & Carnation Properties in the City of Tank D
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Charles S. Bull 1976 Appendix E: An Archaeological Survey of Lake 5 Calavera Hills
RMW Paleo Excavation of Features on Site CA-SDl-6819 and
Associates 2001 Monitoring of Grading on the Hadley Property for Tank D
Rvland Homes, Carlsbad, San Dieao Countv, CA
WEST EC 1975 Excerpt from City of Carlsbad-EIR-295, Plaza 5 Services Camino Real Expansion
Brian F. A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for Mooney 2003 Tank D
Associates the Back Rail Project
Brian F. Byrd Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I
and Collin 2002 Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5, San 5
O'Neill Diego County, CA
Monica City of Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans Guerrero and
Dennis R. 2003 Cultural Resource Background Study, City of 5
GalleQOS Carlsbad, California
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 203 of 223
March 26, 2018
Page 4 of7
NADB
No.
1131144
1132085
Authors
Susan Hector
Russell Collett
and Dayle
Cheever
Date Title
2007 t:::.ncma-/-'enasqwtos Transmission Lme Kecords
Search
Significance Assessment of Six Cultural
Resources Sites within the College Boulevard
2001 Reach A Alternative 1, One Site in the Cannon
Road Reach 3, and Three Sites in the Cannon
Road Reach 4 Alignments, Bridge and
Thoroughfare District 4
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES
Portions of
Appended APE
Addressed
Tank D
5,7
The results of the records search show that there are four previously recorded sites directly intersecting the
currently proposed appended Project APE. Table 2 provides a description of each of the sites intersecting
the current appended APE and identifies which segment of the project each site intersects. Detailed site
records for these sites can be found in Confidential Attachment C of the current letter report. Brief
descriptions of each expansion segment and facility and the sites intersecting and adjacent to them are
provided below. Maps of each proposed expansion segment and facility along with the locations of
previously recorded sites are provided in Confidential Attachment B.
Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites Intersecting the Appended Portions of Project APE
Designation
Museum Appended
Primary Trinomial of Man Site Type Recorder Expansion
Number Number Segment No. Intersected
P-37-CA-SDI-SDM-W-
5601 5601 1293 AP2. Lithic scatter; Cassiola and 7 AP15. Habitation debris Graham 1977
Franklin and
AP2. Lithic scatter; AP3. Thesken 1978;
6139 6139 1781 Ceramic scatter; AP15. Romani and 5, Potable Water
Habitation debris Hawthorne 1981; Pipelines
Morgan and
· Tennesen 2010
AP2. Lithic scatter; AP3. Thesken 1978; 6819 6819 1878 Ceramic scatter; AP15. Huey 1992 Tank D
Habitation debris
10025/ AP2. Lithic scatter; Hedges 1978;
13124 10025 133 AP15. Habitation debris Prewitt, Allen, and 5
Stahl 1967
Expansion Segment 5
ES 5 consists of 4-in.-to 8-in.-diameter pipeline that will extend the recycled water distribution system
north along El Camino Real to serve the second phase of the Robertson Ranch development, several existing
homeowners associations, and existing landscape irrigation.
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 204 of 223
March 26, 2018
Page 5 of7
Sites SDI-6139, and CA-SDI-10025/13124 were identified as intersecting the proposed appended Project
APE of ES 5 (Figure 4 in Confidential Attachment B). SDI-6139 was originally recorded by Franklin and
Thesken in 1978 as a possible village site with a large shell, bone, ceramic, and lithic scatter, including
projectile points, flakes, ground stone, hammer stones, chopping tools, and a scraper. Historic-period
porcelain was also recorded. The site was revisited by Romani and Hawthorne in 19 81 , and they suggested
that the site was possibly an ethnohistoric village encountered by Portola in 1769. In 2010, the site was
revisited by Morgan and Tennesen ofHDR to survey dirt access roads intersecting the site. They identified
. some shell in the access roads, but vegetation next to the roads was dense and no other artifacts were
identified. Recon conducted an evaluation of the site and based on the absence of site integrity and limited
artifact density and diversity, they determined the site was not significant.
SDI-10025 was recorded in 1978 by Ken Hedges, initially as W-133, as a general surface scatter of shell,
flaked stone, and fire-cracked rock, with the dense midden deposits having a very high shell content. Three
loci are identified within the site. The site was reportedly visited earlier by Malcolm Rogers, who reported
a sweat house associated with the site. Hedges was unable to re-locate this feature possibly due to a massive
earth cut in Locus A. The initial site record for SDI-13124 is the same site record prepared by Ken Hedges
from 1978 for SDI-10025. There is a scantly detailed site record from 1967 by Prewitt, Allan, and Stahl
that lists a bifacial mano, a core, four pot sherds, 24 flakes, a broken cobble fragment, a unifacial hand
stone, another possible hand stone, and some clear glass at the site. An EIR by Phillips Brant Reddick
documents that SDI-10025/13124 was severely impacted and no longer retains integrity, and that no
significant impact would occur from a 26-acre project that is now complete.
Expansion Segment 7
ES 7 consists of 4-in.-to 8-in.-diameter pipelines that will provide service to a homeowners association,
and existing school landscaping at MiraCosta College in Oceanside. The proposed alignment for ES 7 runs
along Tamarack A venue, Chatham Road, Andover A venue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Drive.
SDI-5601 was originally recorded in 1977 as covering an area of 3 acres (Figure 4 in Confidential
Attachment B). Four concentrations of cultural material were noted, including ground stone and flaked
stone artifacts, fire-affected rock, and shell. A testing and data recovery program was conducted by Recon
on the south half of the site prior to the residential development and impacts to the site were considered
mitigated to below a level of significance (Hector 1983). The northern half of the site was also recently
tested by ASM in 2011 and determined to be not significant.
Storage Tank D
An additional recycled water storage is proposed at the existing "Twin D" tank site. This will include either
constructing a new 1.5-MG steel tank adjacent to the two existing tanks or relocating an existing 1.5-MG
steel tank to the site. Construction would include an at-grade concrete ring wall to support the 1.5-MG tank.
SDI-6819 intersects the proposed location for the storage tank (Figure 5 in Confidential Attachment B).
This site was first recorded in 197 8 by Jay Thesken. The site reportedly consisted of three scrapers, one
core, two choppers, and two Tizon Brownware sherds, as well as a moderate scatter of shell on a gentle
contoured hilltop. In 1992, the northwest portion of the site was tested by Danielle Huey of Gallegos &
Associates prior to construction of several tanks and pads. The artifacts recovered included 27 piec~s of
debitage, one retouched flake, one scraper, three cores, one core tool, one hammer stone, two hand stones,
nine hand stone fragments, one ground stone with battering, and 11 pot sherds. The site was determined to
be a Late Prehistoric temporary camp where mainly shellfish processing and seed grinding occurred. The
northwest portion of the site that was tested (which includes the currently proposed Tank D location) was
determined to be not significant by Gallegos & Associates (also see Daniels and Becker 2014).
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 205 of 223
March 26, 2018
Page 7 of7
References
Daniels, James T. and Mark S. Becker
2014 Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Phase III Recycled
Water Project. ASM Affiliates, Inc. On file at the South Coast Information Center.
Hector, Susan M.
1983 Archaeological Excavation of SDI-5601/SDM-W-1293, Carlsbad, California. Recon, San Diego.
On file at the South Coast Information Center.
Attachments:
Attachment A Project Maps
Figure 1. Regional project location map showing appended segments of ES 5, ES 7, Tank D, and
Potable Water Pipelines.
Figure 2. The 1 :24,000 scale location map with prior and appended segments of ES 5 and ES 7, along
with the Potable Water Pipelines.
Figure 3. The 1 :24,000 scale project location map showing the updated location of Tank D.
Attachment B Confidential Resource Maps
Figure 4. Archaeological sites within a Y4 mile of appended segments of ES 5 and ES 7, along with the
Potable Water Pipelines.
Figure 5. Archaeological sites within a Y4 mile of the updated location of Tank D.
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 207 of 223
Addendum: CMWD Class I Inventory
ATTACHMENT A
Project Maps
Attachment A
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 208 of 223
E1 -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FEDERAL COORDINATION ATTACHMENTS
Check the box next to each item to indicate which supporting attachments you have provided with your application. The supporting
documents must be provided unless it is not applicable.
~ E1 .1 -Clean Air Act
• Air quality modeling data
• Complete air emissions chart (see Evaluation Form below)
• General conformity and/or air quality studies, as applicable
D E1 .2 -Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA)
• Consultation record for CBRA resources in the vicinity of the project area with the USFWS, if applicable
D E1 .3 -Coastal Zone Management Act
• Copy of coastal zone permit or coastal exemption, if applicable
~ E1 .4 -Endangered Species Act
• Up-to-date (less than one year old) USFWS, CDFW Natural Diversity Database, and CNPS species lists
• Project-level biological resources and habitat evaluation including field survey and species lists review
• Record of federal consultation and correspondence, if applicable
D E1 .5 -Environmental Justice
• Consultation record for the affected areas with the USEPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,
if applicable
D E1 .6 -Farmland Protection Policy Act
• Assessment of the conversion of prime/unique farmland and farmland of statewide/local importance to
non-agricultural uses, if applicable
• Assessment of Williamson Act lands converted and/or affected, if applicable
• Consultation with USDA and correspondence, if applicable
~ E1.7-Flood Plain Management
• FEMA flood mapping of the project area, if applicable
• Assessment of flood hazard and drainage pattern alteration, if applicable
~ E1 .8 -National Historical Preservation Act
• Cultural Resources Report (with less than one year old record search, extending to a half-mile beyond the
project area of potential effects [APE] on historic properties consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) requirements
D E1 .9 -Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
• Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the State Water Board's consultation with the NOAA National
Marine Fisheries Service, if applicable
• Please see regulation E1 .4 above for EFH Assessment requirements
~ E1 .1 O -Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• List of migratory birds including avoidance measures, if applicable
D E1 .11 -Protection of Wetlands
• Copy of 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if applicable
• Copy of 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), if applicable
• Wetland delineation and survey assessment, if applicable
D E1 .12 -Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection
• Consultation record with the USEPA Region 9 Ground Water Office, if applicable
D E1 .13 -Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
• Consultation record with the USDA Forest Service Region 5 Office, if applicable
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 2 of 1 O Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 213 of 223
Attachment E1
Evaluation Form for Environmental Review and Federal Coordination
Applicant Name: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Project Title: Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
1. Clean Air Act:
Air Basin Name: San Diego Air Basin
Local Air District for Project Area: San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
Is this project subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformity determination?
D No -The project is in an attainment or unclassified area for all federal criteria pollutants.
18:1 Yes -The project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject to maintenance plans for a federal criteria pollutant. Include
information to indicate the nonattainment designation (e.g., moderate, serious, severe, or extreme), if applicable. If estimated emissions
(below) are above the federal de minimis levels, but the project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are
used in the approved SIP for air quality, then quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using
population projections.
Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction and operation would be below federal de minimis levels for all
pollutants.
• The Lead Agency shall provide the estimated project construction and operational air emissions (in tons per year) in the
chart below, and attach supporting calculations, regardless of attainment status.
• Also, attach any air quality studies that have been done for the project. (HELIX 2018a, 2013a)
Pollutant
Ozone (03)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC)/
Reactive Organic Gases
(ROGl
Lead (Pb)
Particulate Matter less
than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.sl
Particulate Matter less
than 10 microns in
diameter (PM1ol
Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Federal Status
(Attainment, Nonattainment Rates
Nonattainment, (i.e., moderate, serious,
Maintenance, or severe, or extreme)
Unclassified)
Nonattainment Marginal
Maintenance --
See ozone above See ozone above
See ozone above See ozone above
Attainment --
Attainment/ --Unclassifiable
Unclassified --
Attainment --
Page 3 of 10
Threshold of
Significance for Construction Operation
Project Air Basin Emissions Emissions
(if applicable) (tons/year) (tons/year)
See voe and NOx See voe and NOx See voe and NOx
below below below
550 pounds per day; 5 0 100 tons per vear
250 pounds per day; 7 0 40 tons per vear
75 pounds per day; 1 0 13. 7 tons per year
3.2 pounds per day; ---0.6 tons per year
55 pounds per day;
10 tons per year 1 0
1 00 pounds per day; 5 0 15 tons per year
250 pounds per day; 0 0 40 tons Per vear
Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 214 of 223
2. Coastal Barriers Resources Act:
Will the project impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes,
estuaries, inlets, and near-shore waters? Note that since there is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in
California, p'rojects located in California are not expected to impact the Coastal Barrier Resources System in other states. If
there is a special circumstance in which the project may impact a Coastal Barrier Resource System, indicate your reasoning
below.
~ No -The project will not affect or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes,
estuaries, inlets, and near-shore w~ters, explain:
The project is located within California. There is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in California.
D Yes -Describe the project location with respect to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and the status of any consultation with
the appropriate Coastal Zone management agency and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
3. Coastal Zone Management Act:
Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone?
D No -The project is not within the coastal zone, explain:
.
~ Yes -Describe the project location with respect to coastal areas and the status of the coastal zone permit, and provide a copy of the
coastal zone permit or coastal exemption:
The new storage tank location and the Palisades potable water pipelines are located within the Coastal Zone. The new pipeline
extensions for Segment 5 and 7 and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines are located outside of the Coastal Zone.
Development within the coastal zone boundaries is subject to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance, and the California Coastal Act (CCA) and would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit
(CDP). The city's LCP was approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1996 and the latest amendment was
approved in 2016. The city acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects within its coastal zone, with a few
exceptions. There are areas of "deferred certification" where the state retains its permitting authority. All projects in the coastal zone
would require review for consistency with the LCP and CCA prior to issuance of a CDP, which would occur once preliminary design
drawings are prepared. This would ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the LCP; individual components would
require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
The storage tank and pipelines that occur within the Coastal Zone would not adversely affect or impact Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Area (ESHA) or other protected coastal resources identified within the approved city's LCP. The proposed modifications would
not conflict with the city's LCP, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.
4. Endangered Species Act (ESA):
Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that
may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat that are known, or have a potential, to
occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or in the service area?
• Required documents: Attach project-level biological surveys, evaluations analyzing the project's direct and indirect effects
on special-status species, and an up-to-date species list (less than one year old from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, the California Natural Diversity Database and the California Native Plant Society) for the project area. (HELIX 2018b,
HELIX 2013b)
D No -Discuss why the project will not affect any federally listed special status species:
~ Yes -Provide information on federally listed species that could potentially be affected by this project and any proposed avoidance
and compensation measures so that the State Water Board can initiate informal/formal consultation with the applicable federally
designated agency. Explain any previous ESA consultations /coordination conducted with the National Marine Fisheries Service or
USFWS for the project:
The proposed modifications do not directly impact federally listed species, and are not likely to result in indirect impacts to these
species. Further, none of the proposed modifications occur within undeveloped areas supporting naturalized habitat and designated by
the USFWS as Critical Habitat for federally listed species. None of the sites support the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of
USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for any federally listed species. Therefore, the proposed modifications will have no effect on Critical
Habitat. Further discussion is provided below reQardinQ potential effects of the proposed modifications on federally listed species.
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 4 of 10 Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 215 of 223
Federally Listed Plant Species: None of the 12 listed plant species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013b) has been
reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the Segment 5 extensions, or within the storage tank location. No listed plant
species were observed during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Listed plant species are not likely to occur in or near the
proposed modifications. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects on federally listed plant species are anticipated to occur as a result of
proposed modifications.
Federally-Listed Animal Species: None of the nine listed animal species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013b) has
been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the proposed modification sites. No listed animal species were observed
or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers, tracks, scat, etc.) during the October 3, 2017 general biological
survey. Therefore, none of the nine listed animal species has the potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves,
and no direct effects would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
However, six of the nine federally listed species have a potential to occur within off-site habitat located in the immediate vicinity (i.e., at
locations within 100 feet) of the proposed modifications locations, as follows:
• San Diego fairy shrimp has low potential to occur within the temporarily ponded area located on the graded development pad,
within 100 feet of the proposed storage tank location.
• Coastal California gnatcatcher has the potential to nest within off-site coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland, to the west of
Tamarack Avenue along the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension.
• Least Bell's vireo has the potential to nest within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment
5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in the area in 2015.
• Light-footed clapper rail is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) within off-site wetland habitat along Buena
Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in
2007.
• Southwestern willow flycatcher is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a temporary migrant within off-site
wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded
approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the area in 1984.
• Western snowy plover is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a wintering resident within off-site wetland
habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena
Vista Lagoon in 1995, but is presumed extirpated.
Potential indirect effects on federally-listed animal species from construction of the proposed modifications could include those resulting
from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition, construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may support
federally listed animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction; however, the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District has committed to daytime construction hours and construction of the proposed modifications would not require the use of
nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into
sensitive biological areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant.
Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas could be potentially adverse and
significant on federally listed species only if construction would occur during the breeding season and if the species would be nesting in
the immediate vicinity of construction activities. As identified above, coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo represent the
only federally listed species with potential to nest in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. Indirect effects on San Diego
fairy shrimp could also occur as a result of construction equipment and personnel entering into sensitive basin habitat. Potentially
adverse indirect effects would not be anticipated to occur to federally listed species within the potential to forage (only) within adjacent
habitat, such as the light-footed clapper rail , southwestern willow flycatcher, and western snowy plover. Species with the potential to
forage (only) would only be expected to use the adjacent habitat temporarily and would be able to relocate into alternative foraging
areas without being harmed.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F, included in the Adopted IS/MND (Atkins 2012), would reduce potentially
adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting federally listed species to less than significant levels. These measures include: Bio-
1A, Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors; Bio-1B, Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys; Bio-1C, Orange Construction
Fencing; Bio-10, Construction-Related Noise; Bio-1 E, Construction Staging Areas; and Bio-1 F, Contractor Training. With the
implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect nesting federally listed species and the
project would be in conformance with the ESA.
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 5 of 10 Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 216 of 223
5. Environmental Justice:
Does the project involve an activity that is likely to be of particular interest to or have particular impact upon minority, low-
income, or indigenous populations, or tribes?
~ No -Selecting "No" means that this action is not likely to be of any particular interest to or have an effect on these populations or
tribes, explain:
The proposed modifications include a storage tank relocation within an existing Carlsbad Municipal Water District site and minor
pipeline extensions. These infrastructure modifications would be located within existing disturbed and developed roadway and utility
rights-of-way and would not affect minority, low-income, indigenous populations, or tribes. Local Native American tribes were contacted
as part of Section 106 compliance for the Adopted IS/MND (see Item #8 of this checklist).
0 Yes -If you answer yes, please check at least one of the boxes and provide a brief explanation below:
0 The project is likely to affect the health of these populations.
0 The project is likely to affect the environmental conditions of these populations.
D The project is likely to present an opportunity to address an existing disproportionate impact of these populations.
0 The project is likely to result in the collection of information or data that could be used to assess potential impacts on the
health or environmental conditions of these populations.
0 The project is likely to affect the availability of information to these populations.
0 Other reasons (please describe):
6. Farmland Protection Policy Act:
Is any portion of the project located on important farmland?
~ No -The project will not affect protected farmland. Explain:
The alignment for the proposed modifications does not contain mapped Prime or Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, or
Grazing Land. There are no Williamson Act lands within the project alignment.
D Yes -Include information on the acreage that would be converted from important farmland to other uses . Indicate if any portion of
the project boundaries is under a Williamson Act Contract and specify the amount of acreage affected:
7. Flood Plain Management:
Is any portion of the project located within a 100-year floodplain as depicted on a floodplain map or otherwise designated by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency?
• Required documents: Attach a floodplain map.
0 No -Provide a description of the project location with respect to streams and potential floodplains:
~ Yes -Describe the floodplain, and include a floodplains/wetlands assessment. Describe any measures
and/or project design modifications that would minimize or avoid flood damage by the project:
The 100-year FEMA floodplain map is attached to this document as Figure 1. No proposed modifications are located within 100-year
floodplains.
•.
8. National Historic Preservation Act:
Identify the area of potential effects (APE) with both cartographic and textual descriptions, including construction, staging
areas, and depth of any excavation. (Note: the APE is three dimensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the
project, including the surface area and extending below ground to the depth of any project excavations).
• Required documents: Attach a copy of a Cultural Resources Report prepared by a qualified professional that includes a
current records search (less than one year old, extending to a half-mile beyond the project APE), with maps showing all
sites and surveys drawn in relation to the project area, records of Native American consultation, and a consultation letter
for the State Water Board to use for consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. (ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2018).
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 6 of 10 Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 217 of 223
A Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared in 2014 by ASM Affiliates Inc., after adoption of the IS/MND, in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the CEQA Plus analysis. ASM sent letters to a list of tribes provided by
the Native American Heritage Commission to inquire about any issues of cultural concern regarding the project area for the Adopted
IS/MND and no responses were received. An Addendum Report to the Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared by ASM
Affiliates Inc. in 2018 to analyze the cultural resource sensitivity of the proposed modifications.
The Addendum Report determined that cultural resources within SDl-6139 (Segment 5 and Flower Fields potable water pipelines) were
no longer identified as significant in recent surveys due tb absence of site integrity and limited artifact density and diversity. In a recent
survey, SDl-10025 (Segment 5) was determined to be severely impacted by previous activities and would not have significant cultural
resources. SDl-5601 (Segment 7) has previously undergone a testing and data recovery program due to residential development in the
area, and a recent survey determined the rest of the site to not have significant cultural resources. SDl-6819, located near the storage
tank site, had undergone artifact recovery prior to construction of the existing tanks and pads on site. This site was recently tested and
determined to not contain significant cultural resources. In addition, the proposed modifications would implement the cultural resource
procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND (Atkins 2012), which includes retaining a qualified archaeologist and Native American
monitor if subsurface cultural resources are encountered or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources
are encountered. Further, the proposed modifications would provide archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas that
intersect with known archaeological sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them. Therefore, there would be less than significant
impacts to cultural resources from the proposed modifications.
Parts of Segment 5 and Segment 7 were identified as being within a high paleontological sensitivity area; therefore, the Segment 5 and
Segment 7 extensions may be in these areas. However, as with the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would
occur within existing roadway ROW that has already been disturbed, and significant impacts from the proposed modifications would not
occur.
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would implement the required protocols under Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 5097.97 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 if human remains are encountered; therefore,
impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Given the aforementioned, the proposed modifications would be consistent with the NHPA.
9. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act:
Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement that
may adversely affect essential fish habitat?
12:1 No -Discuss why the project will not affect essential fish habitat:
The proposed modifications would be constructed within disturbed and/or developed upland areas that lack marine resources and
Essential Fish Habitat regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No Essential Fish Habitat
occurs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect
Essential Fish Habitat and would be in conformance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
D Yes -Provide information on essential fish habitat that could potentially be affected by this project and any proposed avoidance and
compensation measures. Explain any previous consultations/coordination conducted with the National Marine Fisheries Service for the
project:
10. Migratory Bird Treaty Act:
Will the project affect protected migratory birds that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding area,
or in the service area?
D No -Provide an explanation below.
12:1 Yes -Discuss the impacts (such as noise and vibration impacts, modification of habitat) to migratory birds that may be directly or
indirectly affected by the project and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Include a list of all migratory birds that
could occur where the project is located:
The proposed modifications would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of developed and undeveloped areas characterized by
trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings, water tanks, etc.) that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common and
sensitive bird species, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Common bird species with the potential to nest
in the vicinity of project components include species such as California towhee (Me/ozone crissa/is), song sparrow (Me/ospiza melodia),
black phoebe (Sayomis nigricans), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos); house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna's
hummingbird (Ca!ypte anna), American crow (Corvus brachvrhvnchos), mournina dove (Zenaida macroura), and Bullock's oriole
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 7 of 10 Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 218 of 223
(lcterus bullocki1). Sensitive bird species with the potential to nest include federally listed species such as coastal California gnatcatcher
and least Bell's vireo, in addition to non-listed sensitive species such as southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila
ruficeps canescens), Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza be/Ii be/11), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperi1).
Indirect effects could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an
active bird nest (or nests on man-made structures), such that the disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. These
potential adverse effects on nesting birds and raptors would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1A (Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors) of the Adopted IS/MND (Atkins 2012), the
proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
11 .. Protection of Wetlands:
Does any portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit
from the United States Army Corps of Engineers?
D No -Provide the basis for such a determination:
~ Yes -qescribe the affect to wetlands, potential wetland areas, and other surface waters, and the avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. Provide the status of the permit and information on permit requirements:
No portions of the proposed modification boundaries contain any areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a
permit from USACE. The proposed modifications would be constructed entirely within upland areas that do not support wetlands or
other waters of the U.S. subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of USACE. Therefore, no direct effects to federally protected wetlands or
other waters of the U.S. would occur.
Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad located within the reclaimed water tank facility. Because of its
isolation from waters of the U.S., this area would not be considered federally jurisdictional.
The new pipeline sections would be constructed entirely within existing roads designed with curb, gutter, and storm drain features to
accommodate stormwater. Therefore, runoff from these would .enter into existing storm drain facilities, which may discharge into nearby
wetlands. For example, the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension is located within a shopping center built just east of Buena Vista
Lagoon and south of Buena Vista Creek. The storage tank would be constructed on a graded development pad, which has a small
berm at the downslope edge to restrict water runoff. Potential indirect effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may
occur if runoff from construction work areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that discharge
into downstream wetland areas.
Potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled
and reduced through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other protective measures incorporated into the
project as mandatory requirements for regulatory compliance. These include acquisition of a Storm Water General Permit and General
Linear Utility Permit, in addition to compliance with local development standards, including the preparation of Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and application of appropriate BMPs.
Construction activities would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES
program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity,
Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge
Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste
Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the
Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
(MS4 permit). Proposed modifications not falling within the coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance
with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water discharge controls required
under the MS4 permit.
For proposed modifications covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater
than one acre), the Carlsbad Municipal Water District would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of
the General Permit, prepare a SWPPP prescribing BMPs, monitoring, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with
the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants
in surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water
control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit.
BMPs (e.g., berms, straw wattles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control the
rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from enterinQ storm water runoff, and may include measures to minimize project
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 8 of 10 Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 219 of 223
disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the
following:
• Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land
disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by
construction is minimized.
• Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a
portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping.
• Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and
crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels.
• Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the proposed modifications and is
kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents.
• Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are detained (e.g., siltation basins).
Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1 B, Bio-1 C, Bio-1 E, and Bio-1 F would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction
equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the
incorporation of the above-referenced protective measures, the project would not result in any adverse effects on federally protected
wetlands and would be in conformance with the CWA.
12. Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection:
Is the project located in an area designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, as a Sole
Source Aquifer?
1:8] No -The project is not within the boundaries of a sole source aquifer. (EPA 2015)
D Yes -Identify the sole source aquifer (e.g., Santa Margarita Aquifer, Scott's Valley, the Fresno County Aquifer, the
Campo/Cottonwood Creek Aquifer or the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Aquifer) that will be affected:
13. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:
Identify watershed where the .project is located:
Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river?
• Required documents: Attach a map if any portion of the project is located within a wild and scenic river watershed.
1:8] No -The project will not affect a wild and scenic river. Explain:
The project is not located within or adjacent to a wild and scenic river (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2018).
D Yes -Identify the wild and scenic river watershed and project location relative to the affected wild and scenic river:
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 9 of 10 Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 220 of 223
References
ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2018. Addendum Report: Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for Amendments to Segments 5 and 7
and the D Tank Site for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California (ASM Project No. 20460). January 7.
Atkins. 2012. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration. November 14.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Pacific Southwest, Region 9, Ground Water, Sole Source Aquifer.
https://archive.epa.gov/region9/water/archive/web/html/ssa.html. Last updated on September 9, 2015.
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2018a. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project,
Addendum to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. February 21.
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2018b. Addendum Report to the Biological Resources Study and Adopted
ISIMND findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. February 21.
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2013a. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project SRF Project Air Quality
Conformity Analysis. May 14.
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2013b. Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application, Carlsbad
Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 15.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2018. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Website.
http://www.rivers.gov/index.php. Accessed on March 5, 2018.
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 10 of 1 O Environmental Package
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 221 of 223