Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-27; Municipal Water District; 760; APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS AND GRANTS, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL 16 AB# 760 APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CASE NO. EIA 12-02; AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS AND GRANTS, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 5022 DEPT. DIRECTOR MTG. 11/27/2012 APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CASE NO. EIA 12-02; AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS AND GRANTS, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 5022 CITY ATTORNEY DEPT. UTIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CASE NO. EIA 12-02; AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS AND GRANTS, AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 5022 CITY MANAGER 3^ RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the CMWD Board hold a public hearing. Adopt CMWD Resolution No. 1455 Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Phase III Recycled Water Project, Case No. EIA 12-02, Project 5022. Adopt CMWD Resolution No. 1456 to approve and authorize an appiication for a loan and grant from the California State Water Resources Control Board's Clean Water State Revolving Fund for the Phase III Recycled Water Project. Adopt CMWD Resolution No. 1457 to approve and authorize dedication of a revenue source for the Carlsbad Municipal Water Districts repayment of the California State Water Resources Control Board's Loan and dedication of a capital reserve fund for the Phase III Recycled Water Project. Adopt CMWD Resolution No. 1458 to approve and authorize submittal of a grant application to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI Grant Fund for the Phase III Recycled Water Project. Adopt CMWD Resolution No. 1459 to approve and authorize the appropriation of funds for the Phase III Recycled Water Project, Project No. 5022. ITEM EXPLANATION: The CMWD started its recycled water program in 1990 with preparation of its five phase recycled water master plan (RWMP), which was accepted and approved by the Board through adoption of Resolution No. 779 on March 3, 1992. Based on the adopted recycled water master plan the Phase I Project was designed and construction completed in 1995, and the Phase II Project was subsequently completed in 2008. The total recycled water demand is now averaging approximately 4,100 acre-feet per year (afy). On November 6, 2012, an updated 2012 RWMP was accepted and approved by the Board through adoption of Resolution No. 1450. The 2012 RWMP documented the capabilities of the existing system, evaluated potential pipeline system expansions, provided recommended pipeline system expansions and treatment supply sources for a Phase III project, and also a build out project. Based on information contained in the 2012 RWMP, a Feasibility Study for a Phase III Recycled Water Project was completed in June 2012 showing the recommended facilities to supply an additional estimated average annual demand of 3,135 afy increasing the total demand from approximately 4,100 afy to 7,235 afy, a 76 percent increase in demand. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: David Ahles 760-602-2768 david.ahles@carlsbadca.gov FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONL Y , BOARD ACTION: APPROVED DENIED • CONTINUED • WITHDRAWN • AMENDED • CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC • CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN • RETURNED TO STAFF • OTHER - SEE MINUTES D Page 2 The total recycled water demand for the Phase ill project included 1,985 afy within CMWD delivering recycled water to an estimated 56 user sites, plus delivering 1,150 afy of recycled water to three other adjacent agencies including Olivenhain Municipal Water District, City of Oceanside, and Vista Irrigation District. The three agencies have submitted a "Letter of Interest" which are attached. To provide the recycled water to the user sites, the Phase lli project will include four major components: (1) Construction of 18 miles of pipeline ranging in size from 4-inches to 18-inches in diameter. With reference to the 2012 RWMP the following Pipeline Expansion Segments are included 1 A, 2, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 18. (2) Installing 156 metered service connections. (3) Expanding the capacity of the Carlsbad WRF from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd. (4) Constructing a 1.5 MG storage reservoir at CMWD's Twin D reservoir site. The recycled water will be delivered to the three agencies noted above at the CMWD boundary and each agency will need to extend pipelines, at their cost, to their own customer use sites. Alignments for the pipeline extensions were included in the mitigated negative declaration (EIA 12-02) for the Phase III project. Refer to Exhibit 1 for a location map of the Phase III project. Recycled Water Impact to the CMWD Water Supply - The Phase Ml project recycled water demand was factored into CMWD's water supply mix in two separate documents. The first document was CMWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, approved by the Board on June 7, 2011 through adoption of Resolution No. 1419. This document indicated the water supply mix would be as follows: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan - Projected Water Supply Water Supply Source Year 2010 Year 2015 Year 2035 San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) 16,170 21,348 afy 23,286 afy CMWD Groundwater 0 0 1,000 afy CMWD Recycled Water 3,517 5,000 afy 6,500 afy The second document was CMWD's updated 2012 Water Master Plan, approved by the Board on November 6, 2012 through adoption of Resolution No. 1450. The potable water supply recommendation was as follows: • Purchase water from the SDCWA which could consist of imported water, desalinated seawater, or a blend of both. To receive desalinated seawater directly, the recommended capital improvement program included the cost to construct a direct connection to the proposed transmission main that would be constructed from Poseidon's Desalinated seawater facility to SDCWA's Pipeline No. 3. The benefit ofthe direct connection is to eliminate paying SDCWA's wheeling rate, currently $93/af • Begin analysis to obtain local groundwater from Mission Basin and Agua Hedionda Basin The unit cost for customers purchasing recycled water upon completion of the Phase lli project is estimated at $1,150/af (includes source of supply, operation and maintenance, and loan repayment assuming no grants). If grants or rebates are obtained for the Phase III project the unit cost will be lower. Even without grants or rebates this unit cost is projected to be CMWD's lowest cost water supply compared to imported water, desalinated seawater, and local groundwater. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Staff conducted an environmental impact assessment to determine if the project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The assessment determined the project has potentially significant impacts in the areas of biological resources and hazards/hazardous materials. To Page 3 reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level, mitigation measures contained in the projects Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are required. Based on the above, the City Planner issued a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project on September 19, 2012. During the 30-day public review period (September 19, 2012 - October 19, 2012) staff received comment letters from Preserve Calavera, Leucadia Wastewater District, Department of Toxic Substance Control, Caltrans, and San Diego Archaeological Society; and standard comment letters from the Native American Heritage Commission, State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Clearinghouse. The MND and MMRP, comment letters, and staff responses to the letters are included as part of the CMWD resolution for the MND. FISCAL IMPACT: The total capital cost for the Phase III project is estimated at $29,400,000 as shown in Table 1 and was determined in the Phase III Project Feasibility Study, June 2012. Table 1 Capital Cost for Phase III Recycled Water Project Distribution Pipelines $20,700,000 CWRF 4.0 mgd Expansion $6,900,000 1.5 MG Steel Tank Reservoir $1,800,000 Total $29,400,000 Funding for the Phase III project includes various grant, loan, and rebate opportunities which are summarized below. Phase III Project Grants Received On July 7, 2009, the Board approved an agreement with the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for their "Local Investigations and Studies Assistance" Program Funding for preparation of the Phase III Feasibility Study. Grant funding received was $170,500 and the Feasibility report was completed in June 2012. On December 14, 2010, the Board approved a joint agreement with ten other agencies to share the costs of using an engineering consultant, RMC, to consolidate the recycled water projects being developed by each agency Into a single comprehensive recycled water project titled "North San Diego County Regional Recycled Water Project", (NSDRRWP). The Board adopted Resolution No. 1409 which authorized a grant application to obtain a California State Proposition 84 Grant to be used for the Phase III Recycled Water Project, and also Resolution No. 1410 which authorized a grant application to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation for FY2011 Title XVI funds for preparation of studies and reports. Proposition 84 Integration Regional Water Management (IRWM) Implementation Grant, Round 1 was awarded to the NSDRRWP Project in the amount of $1.3 million. CMWD's share of this grant is approximately $130,000 wh'\ch will be used in constructing one of the pipelines in the Phase III project. Additionai Phase III Project Funding Sources Federal Funding Programs: To assist North County Agencies with obtaining federal grants for projects included as part of the NSDRRWP, on March 11, 2011, the Board approved a joint cost shanng agreement for services from the Furman Group to assist in obtaining federal funding. Staff included the Phase III Recycled Water Project in this endeavor. Federal opportunities are available from the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) through their Title XVI and WaterSMART programs, and the Army Corp of Engineers Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The Title XVI program is limited to a 25 percent project cost grant with a maximum grant amount of $20,000,000. Assuming a total Phase III project cost of approximately 3 Page 4 $30 million, the grant for CMWD could be up to $7,500,000. However, to obtain the grant first requires obtaining a Congressional authonzation under the Title XVI program which is anticipated to be difficult in the current Congress. In October 2012, staff met with Reclamation to review the Phase III project and they were very receptive. If the Board approves the Phase lli project then staff will submit the Feasibility Study to Reclamation for their review and approval. This will initiate the grant authorization process. Reclamation's WaterSMART program is authorized on a fiscal year basis, and the FY 2013 Request for Proposals was issued in two categories including projects limited to $300,000 in grant funding that can be completed in two years and up to $1,500,000 in grants for projects that could be completed in three years. These grants are for projects that save water, improve energy efficiency, address endangered species and other environmental issues, and facilitate transfers to new uses. Reclamation provides 50/50 cost share funding. Projects are selected through a competitive process and the focus is on projects that are very innovative. The Phase III project, at an estimated cost of $29.4 million, is significantly higher in cost for a 50/50 cost share grant, and is a longer term project than two years; and therefore, it would not qualify to receive a WaterSMART grant for the entire project. However, staff is recommending that the Board approve applying for a grant to construct a particular pipeline segment defined in the Phase III Project Feasibility Report that would match the maximum amount of grant allowed and that could also be designed and constructed within a two-year or three-year period. The Army Corps of Engineer's Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) is a federal grant program for the conservation and development of water and related resources. The project proposals are submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for review and certification. Authorized funding is provided by Section 552 of the WRDA 1996 Program. The Corp is responsible for the overall management of the program. State Funding Programs: State opportunities include funding administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which includes the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Program for loans and grants, and the Department of Water Resources through their Integrated Regional Water Resources Management Plan (IRWMP) process under Proposition 84 and Proposition 50. Applications are made to the SWRCB for CWSRF by each agency through their online application process and include low- Interest loans and up to $5 million in grants. Proposition 84 has a Planning Grant up to $1,000,000 and an Implementation Grant, Round 1 up to $7,900,000. CMWD has partnered with ten other agencies in north San Diego County to develop a joint project referred to as the North San Diego County Regional Recycled Water Project, which is described in a report dated May 2012, prepared by RMC. The agencies received notification of a grant award in the amount of $1,500,000 to be shared by all participating agencies. CMWD's allocated share of this grant is 10 percent, or $150,000. With Proposition 50, the SDCWA was awarded grant funding for their Recycled Water Retrofit Assistance Program. The purpose of this Program is to offer financial assistance to end-users to facilitate the retrofitting of user sites to accept recycled water. The program will also offer financial assistance to local recycled water suppliers and purveyors to construct the distribution system pipelines and associated appurtenances necessary to bnng recycled water to their customers. To submit an application to receive a CWSRF loan requires that the Board submit a resolution establishing one or more dedicated sources of revenue for the repayment of the CWSRF loan. Submittal of the resolution does not complete the loan process. There are several remaining steps in the loan process and the Board will be making decisions on the remaining steps before the CWSRF loan can be secured. In the future steps of the loan process, the Board will make final decisions on the following: • Decision on specific project funding strategy; • Decision on the project and the bids; and • Decision on the specific amount from each funding source. The SWRCB will not execute any loan contract until the above steps are completed, and until the Board awards and executes a construction contract with a contractor for the projects. Staff plans to obtain a preliminary loan commitment from the SWRCB prior to solicitation for bids. Submittal of the attached resolutions to the SWRCB is required in order to obtain a preliminary commitment. Page 5 Proposition 84 Integration Regional Water Management (IRWM) Implementation Grant, Round 2: The NSDRRWP Project currently has submitted to the SDCWA for a $4.75 million grant request. A committee will select the projects to recommend to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR Notification of this grant is scheduled for December 2013. CMWD's share of this grant would be applied to two potential pipelines in the Phase III project. Rebate Programs: Historically there have been regional rebate opportunities administered by Metropolitan Water Distnct of Southern California (MWD) and San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). Current incentive levels are approximately $200/af for each acre-foot of recycled water sold. Due to ongoing litigation with MWD, SDCWA member agencies are not permitted to apply for MWD incentives for new water recycling projects at this time. Due to budgetary constraints, the SDCWA did not budget for any new projects under its Local Water Supply Development (LWSD) Program. Local Funding: Local funding may be obtained through various sources. Land developers and homeowner associations may perform in-kind service for retrofit work or funding for pipeline extensions for their development to receive and distribute recycled water for landscape irngation and potentially cooling towers. CMWD Water Replacement Fund: In order to provide funding for ineligible items and cost share for grants staff is recommending that the Board appropriate $2,900,000 from the Capital Water Replacement Fund. Financial Anaivsis of Phase III Proiect An estimate was made ofthe annual expenses Phase III Recycled Water Project including operating costs. Operations & Maintenance costs anticipate the addition of two staff positions classified at Utility Worker. This information is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Annual Cost of Phase III Recycled Water Project Operations & Maintenance $860,000 Capital Depreciation (50 yrs.) $600,000 Total $1,460,000 Incremental Costs per Ac.-Ft. (3,135AF) $466 Staff also evaluated the potential financial impacts to CMWD's potable water system from customers converting to using recycled water. Potable water demand reduction from conversion to Recycled Water would be approximately 1,300 AF. The remaining Phase III Recycled Water Demands are from new developments or area outside of CMWD's boundary. The Potable Water annual revenue would decrease by approximately $600,000 after including the cost of purchasing water from the SDCWA. The anticipated revenue from recycled water commodity charges will make up for the potable water revenue decline. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map Resolution No. 1455 of the Board of Directors of Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Phase III Recycled Water Project, Case No. EIA 12-02, Project No. 5022. Page 6 3. Resolution No. 1456 of the Board of Directors of Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) for authorization to submit an application for a loan and grant from the California State Water Resources Control board for the Phase III Recycled Water Project. 4. Resolution No. 1457 of the Board of Directors of Cartsbad Municipal Water Distnct (CMWD) approve and authorize dedication of a revenue source for the Cartsbad Municipal Water Distnct's repayment of the California State Water Resources Control Board's Loan and dedication of a capital reserve fund forthe Phase III Recycled Water Project. 5. Resolution No. 1458 of the Board of Directors of Cartsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) for authorization to submit a grant application to the U.S. Department of the Intenor, Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI Grant Funding for the Phase III Recycled Water Project. 6. Resolution No. 1459 of the Board of Directors of Cartsbad Municipal Water Distnct (CMWD) to approve and authorize the appropnation of funds for the Phase III Recycled Water Project, Project No. 5022. 7. Letters of Interest from City of Oceanside, Olivenhain Municipal Water Distnct and Vista Irngation Distnct Pacific Ocean Future Tank Site Mahr Reservoir Source; Carolla 2012 ATKINS Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) O Developer O Expansion Projects 9 Adjacent to Existing Customers Recycled Water Pipelines Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Developer mmmmm Expsnsion Segment -1A mmamm Expansion Segment - 2 mmmmt Expansion Segment - 4A Expansion Segment - 5 «s35»-« Expansion Segment - 7 Expansion Segment - 8 ^mmmm Expansion Segment - 9 mmmm Expansion Segment -18 Recycled Water Facilities B ^ IVIeter /\^ WRF \^ Reservoir Leucadia WRF M LWWD Pump Station Freeways IWajor Roads Local Streets Water Body Carlsbad City Limits San Diego County CIVIWD Boundary Pump Station Pressure Regulating Station Other 0 2,500 5,000 Feet N A PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT FACILITY LOCATIONS EXHIBIT 1 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 1455 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD), ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT. CASE NAME: PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT CASE NO.: EIA 12-02. The Board of Directors of the Cartsbad Municipal Water Distnct, Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitonng and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with the Cartsbad Municipal Water Distnct Phase III Recycled Water Project; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Cartsbad Municipal Water Distnct, Cartsbad, California, did on November 27 , 2012, hold a duly noticed public heanng as prescnbed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Board of Directors of the Carisbad Municipal Water District, Carisbad, California considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Carisbad Municipal Water District as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That based on the evidence presented at the pubiic hearing, the Board of Directors of the Carisbad Municipal Water District hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND" according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: The Board of Directors of the Carisbad Municipal Water District, Carlsbad, California, does hereby find: 1. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase III Recycled Water Project - EIA 12-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), on file in the Planning Division prior to APPROVING the project; and 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carisbad; and 3. It reflects the independent judgment of the Board of Directors of the Carisbad Municipal Water District, Carisbad, California; and 4. Based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Board Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas, Packard NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: LORB^NE IVlJ/V9DD,^dcretary (SEAL) Karen R. Kundt^ Assistant Secretary; Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration EIA 12-02 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 Prepared for: Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared by: ATKINS 3570 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 Atkins Project No.: 100024978 fl Contents Mitigated Negative Declaration MND-1 Comments Received on the IS/MND and Responses RTC-1 Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study IS-1 Project Description/Environmental Setting IS-3 Project Description IS-3 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses IS-17 Regulatory Compliance IS-17 Project Design and Construction Measures IS-17 Environmental Initial Study IS-20 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected IS-20 Determination IS-20 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts IS-21 Earlier Analyses IS-67 Supporting Information Sources IS-68 Biological Resource Database and Uterature Review IS-70 List of Mitigating Measures IS-70 Applicant Concurrence with Mitigation Measures IS-73 Figure 1 Regional Location Map IS-4 Figure 2 Phase III Recycled Water Project Facility Locations IS-5 Figure 3 Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion IS-7 Figure 4 Expansion Segment lA IS-9 Figure 5 Expansion Segment 2 IS-10 Figure 6 Expansion Segment 4A IS-11 Figure 7 Expansion Segment 5 IS-12 Figure 8 Expansion Segment 7 IS-13 Figure 9 Expansion Segment 8 IS-14 Figure 10 Expansion Segments IS-15 Figure 11 Expansion Segment 18 .IS-16 Figure 12 Proposed Storage Tanl< Location IS-18 Figure 13 Phase III Indirect Biology Map IS-31 Table 1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses IS-19 Table 2 Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction IS-26 Table 3 Phase III Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species IS-30 Table 4 City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards IS-54 Appendices A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features B Biological Resources Letter Report AnriflMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 ' *• •XllliiJ Pagei November 14. 2012 0- Mitigated Negative Declaration Case Nunnber: EIA 12-02 Project Title: Phase III Recycled Water Project Project Location The Phase III Recycled Water Project (Phase III project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in the County of San Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) service area (see Figure 1). A small portion ofthe 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 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 Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad track and Avenida Encinas. Expansion Segment 4A (ES 4A) is located in South Melrose Avenue in the City of Vista, just east of the boundary of Carlsbad and Vista. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) north and south of State Route 78 (SR-78) along the Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansion Segment 7 (ES 7) is located south of SR-78, west of College Avenue, and north east of Carlsbad Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El Camino Real between Aviara and La Costa Avenue and within the South La Costa Golf Course. Expansion Segment 9 (ES 9) is located north of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, east of Highway 101, and south of Poinsettia Avenue. Expansion Segment 18 (ES 18) is located southwest of Maerkle Reservoir along Palmer Way and Impala Drive. Description of Project Implementation ofthe 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 ofCarlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase III project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase III project would expand the treatment capacity (from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase III project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area (see Figure 2). CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page MND-1 November 27,2012 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Determination The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review ofthe above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation ofthe California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: 3 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an Earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy ofthe Initial study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: November 27. 2012 pursuant to CMWD Resolution No. 1455. ATTEST: MATT HALL( President, Carlsbad Municipal Water District CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (EIA 12-02) (SCH No. 2012091049) The environmental mitigation measures listed on the following pages were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Additionally, the City and CMWD have incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The Phase III project components would incorporate the applicable Project Design Features that are listed at the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ATTI^I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02) November 2012 I^llliiJ PageMMRP-1 10 EIA 12-02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Blo-IA 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.) during the general breeding season, that being from January 15 to September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet ofthe areas planned for construction. The surveys shall tal<e place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component. If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction, or if any active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet ofthe areas planned for construction, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor construction activities. No construction activities shall occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nest or until the end ofthe general breeding season, whichever occurs later. A qualified biologist shall confirm in writing that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction 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. Project Planning Division & Biological Monitor Blo-IB Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre- construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project plans that clearly depict the construction worl< limits, including Project Planning Division & Biological Monitor Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02) Page MMRP-2 November 2012 EIA 12-02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 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 ofthe 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-IF. Blo-lC Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IB 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 ofthe project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior to and concurrent with construction. Project Planning Division & Biological Monitor Blo-ID Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding ofthe 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). Project Planning Division & Biological Monitor If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IB 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. ATKINS CMWD Ptiase III Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02) Page MMRP-3 November 2012 EIA 12-02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks Bio-IE Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IB 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. Project Planning Division and Engineering Division Bio-IF Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IB 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 ofthe sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. Project Planning Division & Biological Monitor 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. Project Project Planning Division & Construction Monitor Planning Division & Construction Contractor ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02) Page MMRP-4 November 2012 EIA 12-02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 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 ofthe nature and duration of work activities. The postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers. 3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones. 4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks or respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek protective clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or ear muffs. 5) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting the exclusion zone. 6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or 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. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02) Page MMRP-5 November 2012 Appendix A Regulatory Compliance ond Project Design and Construction Features Regulatory Compliance Construction and operation of the Phase III project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to various environmental topics, such as the following. Air Quality During construction activities for proposed project components, CMWD would comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. Rule 55 requires the following: 1. No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity in a manner that discharges visible dust emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period; and 2. Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track- out/carry-out shall be minimized by the use of effective trackout/carry-out and erosion control measures listed in Rule 55 that apply to the project or operation. These measures include track-out grates or gravel beds at each egress point; wheel-washing at each egress during muddy conditions; soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; watering for dust control; and using secured tarps or cargo covering, watering, or treating of transported material for outbound transport trucks. Biological Resources Prior to construction activities for projects located within the boundaries of the city, and where it has been demonstrated that the project could result in impacts to biological resources addressed in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities, including HMP Species, Narrow Endemic Species, HMP Habitats, Existing and Proposed HMP Hardline Preserve Areas, Special Resource Areas, and HMP Core and Linkage Areas, as defined in the HMP, the CMWD would demonstrate how implementation ofthe project would comply with the requirements of the HMP, including the established conservation goals and objectives ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 yy|"|^| CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project MMRP November 2012 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 regulations (Title 8 ofthe California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and in Section A33 ofthe 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 ofthe State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCB, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4 permit). Project components not falling within the triggering coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For Phase III project covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prescribing Best Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms, straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff, and may include measures to minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the following: • Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized. • Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion ofthe 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). CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project MMRP November 2012 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction and operation of the project components would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, management, handling, storage, release reporting and response actions, transportation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous waste. These laws include: • U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which provides the 'cradle to grave' regulation of hazardous wastes; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq.), commonly known as the "superfund" law addressing remediation of contaminated sites. • U.S. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 5101 et seq.), which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways. • California Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.) and Hazardous Substances Account Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 25300 et seq.). • California Proposition 65, formally known as "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986" (Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, Sections 25249.5 through 25249.13), requiring persons and entities doing business in California using specific listed chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm or birth defects to provide a clear and reasonable warning to individuals entering the site regarding the presence of such chemicals, and the implementing regulations for such laws. • County of San Diego Consolidated Fire Code, which regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. During construction, these laws govern the manner in which hazardous materials may be transported, used, stored, and disposed of as well as the handling and disposal of demolition debris containing hazardous waste. During operations, these laws govern the use, management, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and the management, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. Table 1 Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals Agency/Department Permit/Approval Action Associated With or Required For State Agencies State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 DWQ Storm Water discharges associated with construction activity. State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements (Water Code 13000 et seq.) Discharge of waste that might affect groundwater or surface water (point/nonpoint-source) quality. California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a deferred certification area in the coastal zone. California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit (California Streets and Highways Code Sections 660 et seq.) Consider issuance of permits to cross state highways. Local Agencies City of Vista Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. City of Vista Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW. City of Carisbad Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. City of Carisbad Discretionary Permit Required for construction activities within the city requiring discretionary approval. City of Carisbad Habitat Management Plan Take Permit Required for potential impacts to sensitive species or habitats covered by the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. City of Carisbad Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a coastal zone. City of Oceanside Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. City of Oceanside Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project MMRP Page A-3 November 2012 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 III project would incorporate the following project design features. Aesthetics The following measures would be implemented into the design and construction of the Phase III project to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase III project: • Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal. • Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to those depicted on construction drawings. • All roadway features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, etc) and structures within state and private rights-of-way will be protected, maintained in a temporary condition, or restored. • Disturbed areas will be restored following construction consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by CMWD or the City, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by CMWD or the City to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CIP pipeline projects that would require trenching or that would require the temporary removal of concrete or asphalt, the disturbed area will be repaved to be consistent with the existing material. Air Quality The following BMPs would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction of Phase III project: Water or dust control agents will be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt stockpiles as necessary to prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne. All soil to be stockpiled over 30 days will be protected with a secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent windblown dust. Covering/tarping will occur on all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways unless additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport. Soil handling operations will be suspended when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. The construction supervisor will have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating wind speed. Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadway will be swept or vacuumed and disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. During periods of soil export or import, when there are more than six trips per hour, dirt removal from paved surfaces will be done at least twice daily. Disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as work in the area is complete. Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply wherever feasible, to avoid or minimize the use of engine-driven generators. Air filters on construction equipment engines will be maintained in clean condition according to manufacturers' specifications. The construction contractor will comply with an approved traffic control plan to reduce non-project traffic congestion impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with existing traffic and the prevention of truck queuing around local sensitive receptors will be incorporated into this plan. Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences. Trucks and equipment will not idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service. ^3 CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project MMRP November 2012 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT 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, and stormwater conveyance systems. - Cultural practices such as restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer applications, storage or disposal of toxic chemicals, or washing of vehicles or equipment in areas that can drain to the estuary. - Public education programs that educate residences about proper disposal of oil or chemicals and that provide opportunities (e.g. designated locations) for residents to properly dispose of contaminants. • For clearing, grading, and other construction activities within the watershed, ensure that proper irrigation and stormwater runoff mitigation measures are employed to reduce sediment loads and to prevent contamination from pesticide, fertilizers, petroleum products, and other toxic substances. • Restrict or limit recreational or other activities within 200 feet of important forage, breeding, and roosting areas. • Require attenuation measures for activities that generate noise levels greater than 60 dBA if occurring within 200 feet of important breeding habitat during the nesting season. • Restrict construction hours to daytime hours that do not require the use of construction lighting. Cultural and Paleontological Resources The following procedure for unintentional disturbance of cultural resources will be implemented to minimize impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources during construction of Phase III project: • If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during CIP project construction, or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered, all ground-disturbing activity will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist retained by the City or CMWD for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. No further grading will occur in the area of the discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation will be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the City or CMWD where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Geology and Soils The following measures will be implemented into the construction and operation of Phase III project to minimize potential risks from geologic and soil hazards: • A site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each CIP project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil, which would determine the risk to the project associated with fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils. The geotechnical investigations will describe site-specific conditions and make recommendations that will be incorporated into the construction specifications for the CIP project. Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to the following typical measures: yyyi^l CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project MMRP November 2012 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 denslfication 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 ofthe 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 ofthe affected jurisdiction. • Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, in order to avoid or minimize the use of engine-driven generators. • Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences. • Operating equipment will be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations. • If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices will be powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine. ^YPI^I ^3 CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project MMRP November 2012 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES • 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 ofthe alignment. For projects that would require pile driving or blasting, noticing will be provided to all residents or property owners within 600 feet of the alignment. The announcement will state specifically where and when construction will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice will be made, either in person or by mail. • CMWD will identify and provide a public liaison person before and during construction to respond to concerns of neighboring residents about noise and other construction disturbance. The CMWD will also establish a program for receiving questions or complaints during construction and develop procedures for responding to callers. Procedures for reaching the public liaison officer via telephone or in person will be included in notices distributed to the public in accordance with the information above. Transportation/Traffic The following measures would be implemented during construction of the Phase III project to minimize traffic effects to surrounding neighborhoods: • Prior to construction, the City will prepare a traffic control plan and coordinate with the cities of Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos to address traffic during construction of project components within the public right-of-ways of the affected jurisdiction(s), including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The traffic control plan will include signage and flagmen when necessary to allow the heavy equipment to utilize residential streets. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local school hours and emergency service providers regarding construction times. j CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project MMRP November 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III 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 ofthe 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 Commentor Date A Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit October 19, 2012 B Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission September 24, 2012 C Jacob Armstrong, Chief, Development Review Branch, Department of Transportation September 24, 2012 D Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control October 9, 2012 E Ahmad Kashkoli, Senior Environmental Scientist, State Water Resources Control Board October 17, 2012 F James W. Royle, Jr., Chairperson, Environmental Review Committee, San Diego County Archaeological Society September 28, 2012 G Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera October 16, 2012 H Paul J. Bushee, General Manager, Leucadia Wastewater District October 19, 2012 ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-i November 14, 2012 COMMENTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA Go\^RNOR's OFFICE offummG Am RESMRCH &rATE CLFjyUNGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT KDMUNDG. BROW'S JR. GCWEIU«0« COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LEHER A. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE October 19.2012 A-1. Barbara Kemedy Carbtsid Municipa! Water District 1635 Faraday Avajue Carlsbad, CA 9200S Subject: CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Project SCH#; 2012091049 Dear Barbara Kennedy: Tlie State Clearinghouse submitted tbe above named Mitigated Kegativc Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse lias listed the state agencies that reviewed yow document. The review psriod closed on October 1S, 2012, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (arc) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify tiie State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please now that Section 21104(c) ofthe Califomia Public Resources Code states that: "A r)^ponsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those aotivitt« involved in a projecl which are within an area of expertise ofthe agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific docHnaeatation." These conuncnts mt forwarded for use in preparing yom- jSnal environmental document. Should yow need more informatioa txr clarificalioB ofthe enclosed comments, wc rectjmmecd that you cetitact the eomiTjentinf agency directly. This letter scknowiedges that you have con^Ued with the State Clearinghouse review rcquitemeiiK for draft <awironraental docunwsnts. punuant to the California Environmsnta! Quality Act. Pleads contact the Stat© Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding tbe environmental review process. Sincerely, A-1. The two comment letters from the State Clearinghouse state that the City of Carlsbad has complied with the State Clearinghouse requirements for the review of draft environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public review period forthe IS/MND extended from September 19, 2012 until October 18, 2012. Three comment letters were received from State agencies during the public review period: the Native American Heritage Commission (letter B), the Department of Transportation (letter C), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (letter D). Additionally, one letter from a state agency was received following the close of the public review period: the State Water Resources Control Board (letter E). Scott Morgan Ditcctor, State Clearingliousc Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 lOtii Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacratneuto, Califomia 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 wvw,opr.ca,gov CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-1 ATKINS November 14, 2012 COMMENTS Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES SC»m 2012091049 Project Titte CMWD Ptias* lil Recyded Water Prefect Lead Agency Cart sbad, Cfty of Typ« Description mm Mitigated Nsgative Oeclaration The Phase lil project would expafxi the ireatmem capacity (from 4,0 ir^d to 8,0 mgd) wthin the Ca?1st>ad Water Receding FaciMty by instaUing additional (illrattoft ynits and chtortne contact basins. TNr Phase lil pMect wouW also instaJI 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocalfi or ccwstfuct a T\»M slonsge tank, c«mvert existing po!at>le water facilities to recycled watw uss, and re&oflt landscape imgaatm water systerns to use recycled water in eight expansions s^mewt locaUons throughout the projact area. Lead Agency Contact Nmme Bart>ara Ksnnwiy Agmcy Carisbad UsiiMp$& Water Dislrict Phone {r6Q)«32-4626 Fax »mail Address 1635 Faraday Avenue City Carlsbad Slate CA Zip 92008 Project Location County Ssn Oiego City Carlstaad Rogtoft Lat/Long 33'8" ir N niT'13*3r W Cross Sfrests tnterstate 5 amj Paiontar Airport Road ParvatNo. Hi A Townsftlp Rmtge Proximity to: Highways Airports Ra/ftvays Waterways Scliools Land Use Hwy 78 McCte^lan-Palomar, Oceanside AT&SF and Coaster Buena Vista Creek, Agua Hedionda Creek, San U&xx/s Cartebad Urtfied District Proj6ci tsstms BioloENort Resourees; Toxte/Hazardoua Reviewing Rssources Agency; Cailftimia Coastal Commisston; Department of l^ish and Game. Re^on 5; Agencies Oapsrtmwt of Parks and Recfeafion; Department of Water Resourees; CHfice of Emergency Management Agency. Califomia: Resources. Recycling and Recovery, CaEtrans. Di\»sion of Aeronautics; Caiiromia H!#way Patrol; Caltrans. OlsWct 11; CA Department «rf PutJlic Heatm: State Water Resourees Control Boani. Divison of Financial Assistance; Res^onal Water iajaiity Control Board, Region 9, Department of Toxic Substances Conlrcrf: Naflve American Hwitage Commission; Puttfic UWitles CcMTimission OateRecefVed 0W19/2012 Start of Review 09/19^12 End of Revlaw iO/imon ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-2 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE af PiANNiNG AND RESL4RCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT EOMWD G. BROWN JR. C3OVEIU50R DlKBCttm October 19. 2012 BariMtra Kamcdy Cily OfCarlsbad Plaiming Departtoent 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: CMWD Phase UI Recycled Water Project SCH#: 2012091049 Dear Barbara Kennedy: The enclosed coitanent (s) on your Mitigated Negative Declaration was (were) received by die State Clearinghottse after the end ofthe state review period, wluch closed m Oct»bsr 18,2012. We are forwarding these cornmetss to you because tfaey provide infomiation or raise issues tihat should be addressed in your final environn^atal document. The Califomia Euvironnwntal Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional coitimcnts into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking ftnal action on flw proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning tihe enviroiunental review process. If you have a question reading the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2012091049) w*cti contecting tlus office. Sincerely, icereiy, wTMorgan Scott Morgan Director, State aearingliousc Enclosures cc: Resources Agency rvi ATKINS 0 CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-3 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION «1SCAmtlLMAIX,R0<»l964 (Sl^fSMSSI COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LEHER B. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION B-l. B-2. Sepiember 24, 2012 Ms, Barbara Kennedy, Planner Cartsbad Munieiiial Waier Histriet (CMWD) 163S Faraday Avenue Calsbad, CA 92008 Re: SCH»2012091049: CEQA Noflce of ComrteHon: proposed MiBoated N«alrtive DedaraMon: for the "Phase lli Recycled Water Protect CEIA12-02F located in the Citv of Carlsbad: San Diego Countv. CalWomia D^Ms. Kenedy: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC> is the State of California Tmstee Agency' (br the prcrtecticHi and preservation of Kattve American oMural resources pursusMit to California PuWic Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by ttie Third Appellate Court In the ca^ of EPIC v. Jkrftnson (1985:170 Cal App. 3"* 604). This letter includes s^e and fedet^ steitu^ relating to Native American histoHc properties or resota^c^ of r^ious wt^ cultural ^rtifican(» to American Indian trittjes and Interested Native Amernan indivkiusrfs s» 'consiMng forties* under tjoth ^ate and fsd^l law. State law also addresses the fr^sdom of Native Am&ncan R^^ious Expression in PuWIc Resourt^Code §5097.9. The Califomia Environment! Quality fi^ (CEQA - CA Public Resource Code 21000*21177, amendm^ts effective 3/18/2010) requires that any fxofexA that caui^ a subsUinUal adverse drmnge m the ^^ificance of an htetorK^al r^^ource, ttist indudes archaedogical resources, is a 'significant effmX requirir^ ttie pr^aratic^i of an Emnronm^tal Impact Report ^IR) p^* ttte CEQA Gutdelines defines a s^ntficant fmpact on the envirortmi^ as 'a sut»tantfid. or potenttaDy subsltantiai. adverse diar^ in any of {^^cal comiitions within an area affected by the prop<»^ project, incbjdin^ ...ot^cts of historic or s^tt^itN: sipiincance." in order to cort^^ witti ttits [»o\d8i<H!i, the lead agerx^ is required to assess whither ttie pxijet^ wiH have m aKlverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so. to mitigate fliat efiisct The NAi^C recommends ttiat ttie lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands Rle search as part of the careful plannit^ for ttie proposed project The NAHC 'Sacred Sites,' as defined by ttw Natiira American Herits^ Coimiiswon and ttie Cafifomia L^isiaiure in Csriifomia Public Resources Code §§5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items In ttie NAHC Sacmi Lands \mmA<Ky are c»nfident^i and ex^npt from the Public Records Act pursuant to Califomia Govemment Code §6254 (r). Earfy consultation w^ Native Americsui bibes in your area ts ttie best way to avoid unanticqisAed (M»»veries of culbMtd r^ources or burial sites once a project is underway. CiiMtJvaly affiliated tribes arKi indMduats may have kncnu^ge ofthe reli^ous and cuiUirat B-l. 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 effec:t' 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 ofthe 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 ofthe proposed Phase III 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. B-2. This comment recommends consultation with an attached list of Native American contacts. Section 5 ofthe 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 ofthe Recycled Water Master Plan. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, ofthe 2012 Master Plans EIR on page 4.4-6, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave Singleton ofthe 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 ofthe 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 III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-4 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES B-2. cont. B-3. B-4. B-5. B-6. B-7. B-4. B-5. COMMENTS significance of the historic properties in ttie project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you B-3. make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the atteiched lis^ of Native American contacts, to see if your proposal project m^ht impact Native American cultural r^ources and to obtain their recommendations concerning ttie 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 pmHes be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matt^ of envtronmental justice as defined by Califomia Govemment Code §65040.12{e}. Pursuant to CA Public R^ources Code §5097.95, the NAHC request that pettinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties, including archaeological studies. The NAHC retximm^ids m/(Mance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cuiturai resources and Califomia Public Re«>urees Code Secton 21083.2 (Archaeological Resources) that requires doojrr^ntation, data rsoTvery of cultural resources, construction to avoid sites and ttie possible use erf covenant easemente to protect ^tes. Furthermore, the NAHC ifthe proposed project is under the jurisdiction of tiie statutes and regulations ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (6.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321-43351). Consultation with tribes and Interested Native /^erican consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with tiie requirenr^nts of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (2) & .5. ttie Presidenfs Council on Enwronmentel Quality (CSQ. 42 U.S.C 4371 ef 5eg. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretaiy ofthe Interiors StarnJaixIs for U}e Treatment of Historto Properties were revised so that tihiey could be applied to all historic resource types induded in the National Register of Historic Places and induding cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (presentation of cultural environment), 13175 {coordination & consuttation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are hdlpful. supportive guides for Sectton 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards indude recommendations for ali 'lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects B-6. and to "research* the cultural landscape ttiat might include the 'area of potential effed.' ConfldentiaiHy of "hii^oric properties of religious aiKl cultural si^nifk^nce' should also be considered as protected Califomia Govemment Code P254( i) and may also be protecteKj under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretory of tiie Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on tiie National Register of Historic Places. The SetTetary may also be advised by the g.y federal Indian Religious Freedom AxA (cf. 42 U.S.C, 1996) in issuing a decision on whetiier or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and possibility threatened by proposed project adivity. Furttiermore, Pubiic Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Govemment Code §27491 and Healtti & Safety Code Sedlon 7050.5 provide for provisions 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 cemetery'. To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies^ projed i»t}ponents and their contiBdors, in the opinion of tiie NAHC. Regarding tribal consultotion, a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tiib€»s will lead to more qualitative consultotion to'bai input on specific projects. Finally, when Native American cultural sites and/w^ Native American burial ^tes are prevalent within the project site, the NAHC nsccmimends 'avoidants' of ttie site as referenced by CEQA Guidelines Sedion 15370(a). 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 ofthe NHPA. As discussed in response to comment B-2, letters to each ofthe tribal contacts identified by NAHC during the 2012 Master Plans EIR NOP comment period, which included the Phase lli 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 lli 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 III Project components in previously disturbed areas, such as within existing roadways and the developed South La Costa Golf Course. j3 ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-5 November 14, 2012 If you have any me at (916) COMMENTS about this r^ponse to your r^uest, please do mA t^sttate to COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES »rogram Analyst Cc State Ctea^DbhotJse Attachment: Native Anrierit^n Contad List ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-6 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES Native American Contacts San Vtego County Septeonber 24,2012 Barona Group of ttie Capttan Grande Edwin Romero, Chairperson 1095 Barona (toad DIegiieno Lakeside . CA^40 sue@barona-nsn.gov (619)443-6612 619-443-0681 Vie{£^ Band of Kumeyaay Indians Anftiony f^. Pico. Chairperson PO Box 908 DiegLieno/Kumeyaay Atf»ne . CA91903 |rotiiauff@vleia8-<isn.gov (619)445-3810 (619) 445-5337 Fax La Posta Band of Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chalrperaon PO Box 1120 DIeguerw/Kumeyaay Boulevard • CA 91905 (619)478-2113 619-478-2125 Jamul Indian Vilis^ Raymond Hunter, Chahrperson P.O. Box 612 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Jamul ' CA91^ jamuirez@sc*dv.net (619) 669-4786 (619) 669-48178-Fax San Pasqual Band erf Mission Indians Allen E. Lawreon. C*iairperson PO Box 36^ Dlegueno Vall^ Center. CA 92082 alterri@s3npasqualband.com (jm 749-3200 (7&}) 749-3876 Fax Mesa Grande Band ot Minion Indians Martc RcMTiero. Chairperson P.O Box 270 Dlegueno SanteY8S*el. CA 92070 mes£^randeband@fi^-com (760)782-3818 (760) 782-9092 Fax Sycuan Band of tiie Kumeyaay Nation Daniel Tud^r, Chalrpers<»i 5459 Sycuan Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay ElC^jon . CA 92019 ssilva@sycuan-nsn.gov 619 4^2613 619 445-1927 Fax Pala Band of ^s^n Indians Historic PresewatlCMi Offlce^hasta Gaughen 35008 Pala Tefne(»da Road, Luiseno Pala" . CA 92059 PMB 50 (760)891^15 sgai^hen@palatribe.c(Hn (760) 742-3189 Fax Tills llist l» cisnnt oi4ir as of ttw dtrtt or thic documont Di«i«>«U<m of ttrfs list *m not mfcw «W l>e«<m Sactlan SIMT.M oftlw PuWtc Rasouras Cod« and Seetlon SBSr.M of Ota PubMc Roource* Code. TWs l(a« te sppiicabis for conUctlng local Nattw Amwicaiu with fsflard to cuiltucal reeourcm for the propoMd sCHieoi 29(»1049i OBM Notlco of Ctmplelioo: proposed tmgmni NegaHvt De(teMNm for tiM Ptose in KmsftlM WMer Pro|e«l; located In the C% of CarislNK^ San Diego Cow^, Catltbmia. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-7 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES Native American Contacts San Dl^o County September 24,2012 Pauma & Yuhna Reservaticwi Randall Majel, Chairperson P.O. Box 369 Luiseno Pauma VaHey CA 92061 paumareservation@aoi.c<:»n (760) 742-1289 (760) 742-3422 Fax Pauma Valley Band of Lulsefio Indians Bwnae Calac, Tribal Coundl Member P.O. Box 369 Pauma VaHey CA 92061 bennsec8lac@aol.cx)m (760)617-2872 (760) 742-3422 - FAX Luiseno Rincon Band of Mission Indians Vincent Whlpjrfe, Tribal Wstoric Preationv. C^lcer P.O. Box 68 Luiseno Valley Center. CA 92082 twolfe@rirxx}nti1be.org (760) 297-2635 (760) 297-2639 Fax Rincon Band of Mi^i(»i Indians BoMazzetti, Chstfrperson P.O. Box es Luiseno Valley Center. CA 92082 bomazzetti@aol.com (760)749-1051 (760) 749^901 Fax Kwaaymil Leguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 Diegueno - PIneVaWey . CA919^ (619)709-4207 San Pasqual Band of Indians Kristie Orosco, Environmental Coordinator P.O. B<»c 365 Luiseno Vsriley Center. CA9;^2 Dt^ueno (760) 7*9-!asm coiinc9@sar^a$qualtribe.org (760) 749-3876 Fax Inaia Band df Mission Indians Rebecca Osuna, Diaimnan 2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Diegueno Escondido . CA92025 (760) 737-7628 (760) 747-8568 Fax EwilEapaayp Tribal Offi€» Will mtMin. EmciAim Director 4054 Willows Road Alpine . CAsisoi wmlcklin@leaningrock.net (619)445-6315-voice (619) 445-9126-fax DIeguerKt/Kumeyaay Thl« Ust i* cunmt oo^ •• of the date of tt«a docximem. Dtstrttiution of thte Ust dOM no* nOuv my person of the ttsUilory fesponsii><nty as defined In Section TOSfl.S of ttw Health and Safety Code, Seclion S0S7M ofthe l^iblte Rarcurcas Code ami Se<«oa SOn,» of the This ttet Is app«c«l>*e for contac^ng local Native Amettcans with reaard to cuiturai resources for the proposed sCM»»iai91«4»; OTQA Itotioe of CompteHon: pmpoeMf MHgaled NegaMve Declaration for the Phase ttl Recrded »«arPro)eel; loortad in the Ci^ of Cwlsbwt SM Oiego County, CaOfOtrte. ^ ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-8 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES Native Amertcsan Corrtacts San Dtego County September 24,2012 San Luis Rey BarxJ of Mission Indians Cultural Oep«irtment 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista . CA 92081 Cupeno 7«>-724-8505 7«)-724.2172-fax Kumeyaay CuKural Repatrie^on Committee Bemice PsJpa, Vtee Spokesperson 1095 Barona Road Diegueno/Kum^aay Lakeskie > CA 92040 (619)478-2113 (KCRC fe a eolation of 12 Kum^aay Governments La JoUa Band of MsskHi Indians LavonnePedt, Chairwomam 22000 Hsgtwmf 76 Luiseno Pauma Valley CA 92061 rob.roy@lajolla-nsn.gov C760) 742-3796 (7«)) 742-1704 Fax Ipai Nation of Santa Ysabel Clint Urtton, Oiredor of CiJlural Resources P.O. Box 507 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Santo Ysabel. CA 92070 cjlinton73@ad.com (760) 803-5694 qlinton73@ad.com Inter-Tribal Guttural Re«3urce Protection Council Frank Brown, Coordinator 240 ft-own Road Dtegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine . CA 91901 frankbrown8928@gmalI.com (619)884-6437 TMs list Is curreirt only aa oraw date <i«Hiia dooiment OistritMlon of fM* Mst does *iot reBevv any person of the slahihMy re^Mm Action 609734 of flts Ptthilc Resources Code and Section SOBT.M «f the PuMIe Reeonrces Code. This list te appllcabia for contacting local Native Americans wiSi ragard fo cultunri resources for the proposed aamBiXmO«i; CBM No0ce of Conpietton; proposed Mtt^iated NegiMve Deciatatlon for ttie Phase n Recycled WM»r Project; located In the ofCarhitiad; San tKego Cotm^, CaBfomla. ^ ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-9 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LEHER C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BISTRICT 11. DIVKION OT PLAJWrNO 4050 TAVUIR ST, M,S. 240 SANOIBGO. CA 92110 mom (6i9)essrm6 FAX (<U9)m4m m 711 SqptoBber24,20l2 n-SD-5 PM 44,07-50.68 Carlsbad MWD Phase IU Recyciwi Water MND/SCH #2012091049 C-1. Ms. Bfflfeara Kennedy CityofCMsbal 1635 Faaday Avrawe Carisbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Kennedy: The Oedifcaiua Dqpattmesit of TisBisportatiioii (CdtiaiK) receii^ flie Mitigat«J Negative Declarattoa (MND) fer ttc ptqfx^ed Carlsbad Mimidpal Water District Phase HI Recyded Watea- pioject (SCH #2012091049) for tihe Oty of Carisbad. Caltrans has die follovnng comoteats: Any utility cro^ogs of freeways will need an atttaoadimmt parmit flx)m Caltrans. Please rdSar to Caltrans BKax^achment Pmoits MMnial flittp:/Avww.d(rt.ca.gov/hq/traffotKi/devdQoserv/pentii^ PCTtmts maEnual/iadex.ht for guidance on utility eacroachmaat AddttiotuI infonnation n^arding encroachment pemnte may be obtain^ by contacting tte Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158. Early coordination wiA Caltrans is strou^y advised for all encroadiment permits. If you have any questions, please contact Uala Ibrahim, Dcvelopm^t Review Branch, at (619) 688-6802. C-1. 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 ofthe 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 III Project component ES 5 that proposes construction on either side of State Route 78. JACOB ARMSTRONG, Oii^ Development Review Branch ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-10 November 14, 2012 Matthew RcKlriqu«z Secretary to EnMronmenW Pfoteaton COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LEHER D. DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Department of Toxic Substances Control Deborah 0. Raplmel, OH«<^ 5796 Cciporate Avenue Cypress. Califomia Bdmund 6. Brawn Jr. Gowemor October 9,2012 D-1. Ms. Barbara Kennedy Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD) PHASE Hi RECYCLED WATER PROJECT. (SCH#2012D91049). SAN DIEGO COUNTY Dear Ms. Kennedy: The Departnrtent of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Initial Study (IS) and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Hie abo\«-mentioned project. The follovwng project desaiptbn is stated in ^ur document: "The Phase III Re<^cled Water Project (Phase III Projecsl) is located in the City of Cartsbad (City) in the County of San Diego, California, within the Carisbad Munidpal Water Disttlct (Cft/RA/D) service area. A small portion of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) Is located in the City of Vista and small component (Expansion Segment 5) is located in the City of Oceanside. The proposed project, Phase III. vwuld expand CMWD's recced v^ter system to the north area of Cartsbad and begin initial expansion into neighbcrting water service agencies. The Phase III project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing pcrtable water facilities to recycled water use, and retn^fit landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area. The Phase 111 project asmponente would be completed between 2014 and 2020. Existing land uses in the project vidnity include residences, commerdal centere, industrial and business paries, and utility infrastructure. The Phase ill project would be constructed within the Cartsbad Water Recycling Fadlity (CWRF), v^ithin existing and planned roadway right of vray (ROW), and vwthin the Buriington Noriihem and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) railroad right of way." Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has tfie following «jmments; ^ ATKINS 1) Tlie MND should evaluate whether conditions within the Project area may pose a tiireat to human health or ttie environment. Foltowing are the databases of some of the r^ulatory agendes: CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-11 D-1. This comment states that the IS/MND should evaluate whether conditions within the project area may pose a threat to human health or the environment, and recommends a list of databases of regulatory agencies. Hazards and hazardous materials are evaluated in Section 8 of the IS checklist. A records search was conducted for the proposed project in February 2012, as described in Section 8 (d) ofthe IS checklist, and included the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases, as recommended by the comment. The GeoTracker Database identified approximately 50 recorded sites along the Phase III project alignments and one near the Carlsbad Wastewater Recycling Facility (CWRF). Open cases involving leaking underground storage tank and cleanup sites are concentrated near McClellan-Palomar Airport and gas stations along El Camino Real. 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. November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES COMMENTS RESPONSES D-1. cont. D-2. D-3. D-4. Ms. Barbara Kennedy October 9, 2012 Page 2 • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). • EnviroStor {fomneriy CalSites): A Database primarily used by the Califomia Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see beiow). • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is mainlined by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Infonnation System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites ttiat is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Infonnation 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. • GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities mainteiin liste for hazardous substances deanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United Slates Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, Califomia, 90017, (213) 462-3908, maintains a list of - Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 2) The MND should Wentify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site within the proposed Project area that may be contaminated, and the govemment 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 jurisdtetion to oversee hazardous substance deanup. The findings of any invest^ations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized In ttie document All sampling results in Vi^idi hazardous substances were found above regulatory standaixis shouM be clearty summarized in a table. All dosuie, certification or remediation approval reports by regulatory agendes should be induded in the MND, 4) if buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are teing planned to be demolish^, an investigation should also be conducted for the D-2. This comment states that the IS/MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation or remediation within potentially contaminated areas. Section (d) ofthe IS 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. D-3. 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 properiy tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements, as required in mitigation measure Haz-1. D-4. 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 contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-12 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES COMMENTS RESPONSES D-4. cont. D-5. D-6. D-7. D-8. D-9. Ms. Barbara Kennedy October 9,2012 Pages presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or producte, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. /Additionally, the <»ntam!nants should be mmedlBied in compliance wth California eniflronmental regulattons and policies. 5) Project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required, if soil is a»itaminated, It must be property 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 backflll the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 6) Human health and tiie environment cf sensitive receptors should be protected during the fieW activities. If necessary, a heatth risk as^ssment overseen and approved by the appropriate govemment agency should be conducted by a qualified heatth ri^ assessor to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials tiiat may pose a risk to human healtti or the environment 7) If the project area was used for agricultural, Hvestodc or related activities, onsite soils and grmjndv^er might contein pesticides, agricuttural dliemical, organic we&te or other related residue. Proper Investigation, and r^edial adions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at tiie site prior to construdi<«i ofthe project 8) If It is detemiined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operatkins, the wastes must be managed in accordance v^h the California Hszardom Waste Control L^ (Califomia Healtii and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.6) and tiie Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Califomia Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is detemnined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the fedtlty should also obtain a United States En vironmentel Protection Agency identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require auttiorizati'on from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Infonnation about the requirement for auttiorization can be obtained by contacting your tocal CUPA. 9) DTSC can provide deanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for govemment agencies that are not responsible parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VGA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or \/CA, please see www.dtsc.ca.gov/SrteCleanup/Brownfields, or contad Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasl, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489. D-5. 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. D-6. This comment states that a health risk assessment should be conducted to determine if there has been or will be any release of hazardous materials as a result of project construction. An appropriate assessment is already included in the IS/MND. Hazards and hazardous materials are evaluated in Section 8 ofthe IS checklist. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. A records search was conducted forthe proposed project in February 2012, as described in Section 8 d) ofthe 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 constructon 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. D-7. 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 III Project components would be located within existing roadways, CMWD property, and a golf course. Therefore, this comment does not apply. D-8. This comment lists applicable regulations for facilities that would generate hazardous wastes. As discussed in Section 8 (a) ofthe IS checklist, the CWRF expansion would be the only Phase III 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 forthe 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. D-9 This comment describes services that the DTSC can provide. It does not address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the IS/MND. No response is necessary. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-13 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES Ms. Barbara Kennedy October 9,2012 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding Uiis letter, please contad Rafiq /Mimed, Projed Manager, at rahmed(@dtsc.ca-qov. or by phone at (714) 484-5491. Sincerely, Rafiq filmed Project Manager Brcwwnflelds and Environmental Restoration Program cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, Califomia 95812-3044 state.clearinahouse@ODr.ca.aov. CEQA Tracking Center Department of To)dc Substances Control Offic® of Environmental Planning and Analysis P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, Califomia 95812 Attii: Nancy Ritter nritter@dtsc.ca.qov CEQA # 3654 ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-14 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS WMcar Boards Sate Water Resources Control Board OCT t 7 2012 E-1. Bart^ra l^rwiedy Cartebad Munidpal Wat^ Distrid 1635 Faraday Avenue San Diego, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Kennedy: DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) FOR CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (DISTRICT); PHASE ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT (PROJECT): SAN DIEGO COUNTY; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012091049 We understand ttiat ttie Distrid is pursuing Clean Water Stote Rwolving Fund (CWSRF) flnandr^ tor tills Projed (CWSF«= No. C-06-7151-110). M a ftinding agaicy and a stsrte agerKsy vwth jurisdiction law to preserve, enhan^, and restore the qualtty of Califomia's watw resources, ttie State Water Resources Contrd Board (State W8*er Board) is provlcBng tiie ftriltwidng infomiation and comments on tiie IS/MND to be prepared tor ttie Pro^ct Please i^ovide us witti the following documente apdicable to tiie propc^ed Projed fdlowing the District's Califomia Environmentel Quality Act (CEQA) process: (1) one copy of ttie draft and final IS/MND, (2) ttie resdution adopting ttie IS/MND and maldr^ CEQA findings, (3) all C(»nmer4s received durir^ tiie reviw period and ttie Dlstirid's r^ponse to ttiose comments, (4) the adt^ted Mitigation Monitoring and Repeating Program (MMRP), and (5) tiie Notice of Detemiinatton fited vrftii ttie San Diego County Cleri< and tiie Governor's OfRce of Plannir^ and Research. Stete Clearinghouse. In addition, we vwHitd appreciate notices of any hearings or meetir^s heW regarding environmental review of any projeds to be funded by tiie Stete Water Board. The State Water Ekjard, Division of Rnandat Asslstence, is responsible tor admWstering ttie C^AfSRF Program. The fximary purpose for tiie CV\^RF Program is to imr^ment tiie Cle«i Water Ad and various state taws by providing finandal assistance for wastewater treatinent fadlfties necessary to ptemrA water pollution. re<^de water, con-ed nonpoint source and ^onn drairiage pollution problems, provide for estuary enhancement and ttieret^ prated and promote heaWi. safety and vneMre ofthe inhabiterrts of tiie state. The CWSRF Program provides low- Intereirf forcing eqml to one-half d ttie most recent Starts General Obligation Bond Rates witti a 20-year term. Applications am accepted and processed continuously. Please refer to the State Water Etoard's CWSRF website at: www.watertx>ards.ca.aov/watar issues/proarams/orants loan^srf/index.shtml. The CWSRF Prop^m is partially funded by ttie United Stotes Environmentel Protedion Agency and requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review. Four endosures are Induded tiiat further explain ttie CWSRF Program environmental review pnxwss and the additioial federal requirements. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LEnER E. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD E-1. This comment states that it is the understanding of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) that the CMWD is pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) 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 projed. However, if CMWD does choose to pursue this funding, they will comply will all applicable SWRCB requirements. X: ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-15 November 14, 2012 E-1. cont. COMMENTS The Stete Water Board is required to consult dir«^y witii agendes resfxxisarfe for implementing federal environmentel laws and regulations. Any envin»imentei tssu^ raused by federal ag^ctes or their representetives will need to be resdved prior to Stete Water Board approval of a CWSRF finandng commitinent for ttie pruHJOsed Projed. FwftKttier information on the CWSRF Progran, ptoase conte<^ Mr. Ahmad Kashkoli, at (916) 341-^855. It is Imported to note that prior to a CWSRF finandng rximmitment p^jeds are subjed to provisions of ttie Federal Endangered Spedes Ad (ESA), said mist dstein Sectton 7 dearance from ttie United States Diriment of tile Ir*^, Fish and WiWIife 8en«ce (USFWS), and/or the United Stetes Depaittnent of Commerce National Oceanic and Atinosf^ieric Adminlstratiwi, National Marine Fisheries Sennet (NMFS) for any potential effects to special-stetus spedes. Piease be adv'eed tiiat ttie State Wat»r Board Mil consult wItti USFWS, and/or NMFS regarding all fed^l spedal-status ^des tiiat ttie Projed has the pdential to imj^d if ttie Projed is to be ftinded under tiie CWSRF Program. The District wifl need to idenflfy whettier tiie Prefect vwll involve any dred effects from constnidion adivrities, or indired ^cte sudi as growtti Inducement ttiat may affed federdly listed ttireatened, endar^red. or candWate spedes tfiat are known, or have a potential to ocair on-site, in tiie surrounding atd&s. or in ttie serwce area, and to identify applicaWe conservation measures to reduce sudi effects. In addition, CWSRF projecte must comdy witti fedwal laws pertaning to culti«ral resources, specifically Section 106 of ttie National Hisfejric Presen/ation Ad. The Slate Water Board has lesponstoility for ensuring complianoe wtti Section 106. and must con^lt directiy witti the Califomia State Historic Presentation Officer (SHPO). SHPO consultation is initiated when awfRdent Infomisrtlon Is proirfded by tt^ CWSRF applt<ant If tiie Distiid deddes to pursue CWSRF finandng. please rdain a carKdtant ttiat me^ ttw Secnetary of tiie Interior's Prd^^ai Qualifications Stsffidards fwww.cr.nP8.<«iv^ocal-law^arch stods 9.htin) to ix^epare a Sedion 106 compliance repent Note that tiie Distiid will need to Identify tiie />krea of Potential Effects {fiPE), induding corMstroction and staging areas, and the deptti of any ex«ivati(»i. The APE is tiiree-dimenstonal and hidudes alt areas that may be affeded by the Project The APE Indudes ttie surface area and extends below ground to tfie depth of any Proje<^ excavations. The records search request shouM be made for an area larger ttian ttie APE The appropriate area varies for different projeds Ixit stwuW be drawn large enough to provide information on vi^at tj^s of sites may exist in ttie vidnity. Please contad Ms, Susan Stewart at (916) 341-6983 to find out mcxe about Vtm requlr«Tients, and to Initiate the Sedion 106 process. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES _[r ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-16 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES E-1. cont. E-2. COMMENTS Otiier federal requirements pertinent to Oie Projed under tiie CWSRF Program indude ttie follo\Anng: A. Compliance with the Federal Clean Air Ad: (a) Provide air quality studies that may have been done for ttie Projed; and (b) if the F^ojed is in a nonatteinment area or atteinment area subjed to a maintenance plan; (i) proi^ a summary of the estimated embsions (in tons per year) that are expected from botii tiie construction and operation of tt^ Projed for each federal criteria pollutent in a nonatteinment or maMenanoe srest, and indicate rf the nonatteniment desigretion is mod^te, serious, or sei^ro (if applicable): (ii) if emissions are above the federal de minimis levels, but tiie Projed is sized to meet only the needs of cunrent population projediorm that are us^ in ttie approved State Implementetion Plan for air quality, quantitetively indicate how the proposed (^padty increase was calculated using population projedions. B. Comptiance with tiie Coastal Zone Management Ad: identity whether the Projed is vnthin a coastal zone and the status of any (xiordination with the Califomia Coastel Commission. C. Protection of Wetiands: Identify any portion of the proposed Projed area that shouM be evaluated for wetlands or Uruted States watens delineation by tfie United States ^rmy Corps of Engineers (USACE), or requires a permit from ttie USACE, and Wentify the status of coorcHnation with the USACE. D. CompHanoe vwth the Fannland Protection Policy Ad: Identify whetiier ttie Projed will result hfi the conversion of fannland. State the status d farmland (Prime, Unique, or Local and Stetewide Importence) in the Projed area and detemnine ff this ar^ is uncter a Williamson Ad Contract E. Compliance witti ttie Migratory Bini Treaty Act List any binjs prdeded under tNis ad that may be tmpaded by the Projed and identify conservation measures to minimize impacts. F. Conpllanoe viritti the Flood Plain Management Ad: Identify whether or nd tiie Prded is in a Flood Management Zone and Indude a ojpy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zone maps for the area. G. Compliance witti the WW and Scenic Rivers Identify w*iether or not any Wild and S<»nic Rivers woukJ be potentiaBy impacted by ttie Projed and Inckide osnsenrafion measures to minimize such Impads, Fdlowing are spedfic caammenfs on the Cttstrid's IS/MND: 1. Mitigation M^sure Bio-IA states ttiat "Prior to removal or damage of any adive nests or any tree prunir^ or removal (^rations during the prwe nesting seasons, tiiat being fram Mardi 15 to May 30, a qualified ttologlst sha* survey tiie tiees to ddanmlne if there ere any active nests vwthin 500 feet of tiie area d tree removal <x pnin\ng.' However, Page 31. undter Btotogical Resources, mentions ttiat the raptor nesting season is (ran January 15-July 31, the gen»al nestir^ season is from February 1-August 31, and Mitigation Measure Bto-ID stMes tiiat ttie general br^lng sea^n is frwn January 15- September 15. • Sim—' RESPONSES E-2. 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) ofthe Initial Study checklist has been revised to be consistent with the more conservative breeding season identified in mitigation measures Bio-IA and Bio-ID (January 15 to September 15). The breeding season definition is consistent with the breeding seasons identified in the Carisbad Habitat Management Plan, which was approved by CDFG and USFWS. The prime breeding season identified in mitigation measure Bio-IA is not inconsistent with the generai 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-IA proposed within Section 4 ofthe 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 ofthe general breeding season (January 15 to September 15). Nevertheless, to achieve consistency and improve clarity ofthe measure, mitigation measure Bio-IA 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 ofthe measure, mitigation measure Bio-IA has also been revised to replace the term "vacated" with the statement, "no longer active and ail nestlings have fledged the nest". Mitigation measure Bio-IA has also been revised to clarify the timeframe for pre-construction surveys. Last, mitgation measure Bio-IA 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-IB has been revised as follows to clarify the timeframe for pre-constructon surveys. Bio-IA 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, orunina. or damage of any active nests or trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g.. buildings, bridges, etc.) anv tree pruning or removal operatioits during the prime general nesting breeding seasons, that being from March 15 to May 3dJgnugrv 15 to September 15. the Citv sholl retain g quglified biologist to shall survey the trees perform a ore-construction survev to determine if there ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-17 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES E-2. cont. E-3. E-4. E-5. E-6. E-7. E-8. COMMENTS Please ensure that the tireeding season timeframe is consistent wHh the Califorrria Departanent d Fish and Game (DFG) and the UFWS requirements to avoid any significant impads or violation d ttie Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If you have any questions, please consult witti ttie DFG and USFWS r^ardir^ nedir^ seasons for tiie spedal status species listed with a high or moderate potential of occurring wittiin the Projed area. Specify h<w many days prior to construdion ^eneraBy 30 days) and tiie timeframe that a qualified fctolc^ist shall survey. In case of vacating neste, consul viritii DFG cr USFWS for afqsropriate protocol measures. In order to aimpfy with ttie MBTA. daase indude sKlditional mit'^atton mes^res if birds or nests of birds subjed to tiie MBTA are discovered outeidte tiie preconstrudion survey window. Pre-constiiiction sun/eying must be done during the general breeding season, not jud during the prime breeding season, to prevent potential adverse effed to the bird 3. 4. Identify tiie 3-dlmensional fi^E induding tiie deptfi of tiie proposed Projed componente and provide a map indicating tiie location and boundary. 5. Page IS-36 indicates ttiat a cultural resources records seardi vras perfomied by Atichis at ttie South Coastel Infonnation Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for ttie 2012 Master Plans EIR which IndiKted tiie /^E d ttie proposed Phase fll Projed. Please indfeate if this records search also indiKted Twin D site, or the CWRF expansion, or If a s«^rate records seardi was perfomied to indude tl^se ateas. 6. Please send a copy of tiie records seardi tiiat was done, Induding tiie seardi request and assodated maps. Copies af site records and previous studies fca* areas witiiin tiie Projed APE will be required for SHPO consultotion. Please id^itify areas exhibiting high ard^ological resource sensitivHy and indude a map indicating ttie relative sensitivify d the projed areas in relation to ttie Projed APE. 1. Confinn tiiat a Native American Consultefion has been compteted based upon the entire projed area by providing a copy d the letter and maps sent to the NaiBwe American Heritage Commission, as m\\ as copies dtiie letters and maps sent to the Natiw Americans and ottier interested parties. FonowHjp vwtti phone cdls or email, and indude a log d attempted contads and any responses re<»lved. Fdlow-up on responses and include the information In tiie discussion on consultation. 8, Demonstrate ttiat The Sedion 106 compliarK^ eflbrte and reporte \mie bemn prepared by a qualified researdier by praising copies d resumes d the Ardiaeologlste conduding and providing oversight to tiie Section 106 reporting accorcBr^ to the Secretory d tiie Interior's Prdessiona! Quarications Standard (www.a-.np8.aov/lQcaHaw/ arch_stiids_9.htin). E-3. RESPONSES ore ony gctive nests within 500feet ofthe areos of tree removal or pruning, planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 davs prior to the start of construction for a porticulgr oroiect component. If any gctive roptor nests ore locoted on or within 500feet ofthe oreos olgnned for construction, or ifonv gctive pgsserine (songbird) nests gre locoted on or within 300 feet ofthe oreos pignned for construction, the Citv sholl retgin o quglified biologist to flog gnd demgrcgte the locotions of the nests ond monitor construction octivities. No tree pruning or removol operations can construction activities shgll occur until it is determined bv a qualified biologist that the nests are vacated no longer gctive gnd all nestlings hgve fledged the nest or until the end of the prime oenergl breeding seoson, whichever occurs later In additioii, prior to any tree removal or pruning operations proposed outside of the prime nesting season but within the period of January 15 to September 15, aA_Qualified biologist shall confirm^ in writing, that no disturbance to gctive nests or nesting octivities would occur os o result of construction octivities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans. Bio-IB Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentiolly 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 thon 30 davs prior to the start of construction for a particular proiect component. This comment states that pre-construction surveys should be done during the entire breeding season, and mitigation measures should be identified for discovery of nests outside ofthe preconstruction survey window. The pre-construction survey required in mitigation measure Bio-IB is not limited to the breeding season. Pre-construction surveys are required for all projed components, regardless of construction schedule. Therefore, this recommendation has already been incorporated in the IS/MND. ATKINS CMWD Phase E-4. This comment requests that the IS/MND identify the depth, location, and boundary ofthe Phase III project components. As stated on page IS-17, open trench pipeline construction would require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the diameter ofthe pipe and its depth. The locations ofthe project components are identified in Figures 2 through 12. The boundaries of each component are described in Table 1, Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses. As described in this table, the project components would be located within existing roadway and railroad right-of-way, within existing CMWD facilities, or within an existing golf course. Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 Page RTC-18 COMMENTS Thank you for ttie opportinirty to review the Dtefrid's IS/MND. If you have any questions or concems. d^ase f^^l free to conted me at (916) 341-5855, or by email at AKadikoti@wateri3oards.ca.qov. or contad Jessica Cdlado at (916) 341-7388, or by email at JCollacto@wateri3oards.ea.qov. Ahmad Kashkoli Sentor Environmental Sdentist cc: Stete Clearinghouse (Re: SCH# 2012091049) P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento. CA 95812-3044 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES E-5. 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. E-6. 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 ofthe 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. E-7. 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 ofthe 2012 Master Plans EIR, Atkins communicated with Mr Dave Singleton ofthe NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, letters to each ofthe tribal contads identified by NAHC were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. The letters described the proposed project and contained maps ofthe proposed CIP locations, including the Phase III project components. Copies ofthe Native American correspondence are provided as Appendix D to the 2012 Master Plans EIR, available for review at the City of Carisbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, California 92008. E-8. This comment requests demonstration of Section 106 compliance. Section 106 consultation is required as part ofthe 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 III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-19 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS ^^^^^^ ^O^^ San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. Enviromnmtal Review Committro 28Septemter20l2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LEnER F. SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. F-1. F-2. To: Ms. Barbara Kennedy Plamiing Dividon Cify of Carisbad 1635 Faraday Avenw Carlsbad, Califomia 92008-7314 Sulgect' Draft Kfitipted Neg^ve Declaration Phase m Recyded Water Rmject EIA 12-02 Ms. Kennedy: I haw icww€xi ttie subject DMND on bdwlf of tins committee of ttie San Diego County Ardm^logical Sodefy. Based on tbe inf(nmati<m contained in tte DMND and initial study, we have the following conunoits: 1. Pai» IS-37 of ttie initial stady slates that for areas which "would involve installation of new pipeliiKis located «itirely wittiin existing roadways", that "Archaeological resources within ttie roadway ROW would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction." Any number of cases could be cited to disprove tfiis unfounded assumptioa The City of San Dii^ has required mtHutoring in many situations for just such worit and has encountered numoxius aidiaeolo^cal deposUs viiuch were, in feet protected by the roadway rsdher than destroyed by it Ms. Myra Hermann at tiie Cify (nihcrnnann@sandiego.gov) can verify that feet 2. To address ttiis possibilify, a qualified archaeologist most review ttie entire route of ttiese iKW pipeUnes Mid idoitify any areas whrare unknown subsurface deposits could ejust 1^ for example, development took place in an area imor to CEQA implemeot^on reqturing colttuk resouroes stedies, all bd the portions of cultural dspjsits could have be«i dwtroyed wittKHit ttieir being recorded Archaeofogical and Native American monitoring should tiben be required for ttiose portions of ttw routes of ttie new pipeline, witti dialled tequirements adfbessing the procedures to be followed if resource are encountered, tq> to and including analysds, rqport |Ht;paration and curation of cultural matoial not associated with human Rsmdns. F-1. 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 Projed 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 ofthe 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 ofthe discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. F-2. 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 ofthe 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 III project components. The purpose ofthe record search and outreach to Native American contads, described in response to comment B-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 III Recycled Water Project would be constructed entirely within previously disturbed areas. Therefore, this recommendation has already been incorporated into the IS/MND. P.O. 80x81106 SanCHego, CA92138-1106 <858) 538-093S _3 ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-20 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS SDCAS appreciates tiie opportuitity to participate in the City's environmental review process fot thisi»oject Sincerely, Uames W. Royle, Jr., Chur Environmental Review Committee COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES cc: Atidns SDCAS Prosident FUc ATKINS C7^ CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-21 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS G-1. October 16, 2012 Barbara Kermedy, Senior Planner Carlsbad Plaiming Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Kermedy: Subject: Comments on MND Phase III Recycled Water Project G-2. G-3. These comments on the draft MND for the Phase III Recycled Water Project are made on behalf of Preserve Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization whose mission is to preserve, protect and enhance the natural resources of coastal north San Diego County. This project is included as part ofthe broader program level EIR for the complete Recycled Water, Sewer and Water Master Plans. This program level EIR for these three plans is still being processed. This project assumes that the mitigation measures included in the as yet unadopted program level EIR plus the related mitigation measures included with this project level MND will address all of the potential direct and indirect impacts associated with this project. That is a pretty big assumption. It is also not acceptable per CEQA to process this project without having finalized the program level EIR of which it is a part. We see that the fiill program EIR is moving forward expeditiously and expect the city is assuming that it will be finalized before this current project level MND is certified. That of course would address this procedural issue. However the proper sequencing of these two documents should be identified. The following are our specific comments on this MND : Since the program level EIR of which this is a part is not yet finalized. This MND should specifically state it will incorporate all mitigation measures that are included in the final certified program level EIR. The current MND has included the mitigation measures(MM) from the DEIR (with minor modifications) but does not acknowledge that these may be modified through the final approval process. The figures do not show where access will occur in the Shadowridge area of Vista or the Ocean Hills Country Club area of Oceanside. Please clarify how it is intended that 5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 920S6 www.preservecalavera.org COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES LEHER G. PRESERVE CALAVERA G-1. This comment expresses concerns regarding incorporation of the 2012 Master Plans EIR mitigation measures into the IS/MND because the 2012 Master Plan EIR has not been certified. This EIR was subsequently certified on November 6, 2012. Although the EIR was not certified at the time of IS/MND preparation, CEQA does not require an EIR to be certified in order to be incorporated as a reference. As stated in Section 15150(a) ofthe CEQA Guidelines, a Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. The Draft EIR for the 2012 Master Plans EIR was available for public review prior to the public review ofthe IS/MND and was provided on the City's website. This document is currently available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carisbad, California 92008. Therefore, the 2012 Master Plans EIR is an appropriate document for incorporation by reference. Additionally, although the analysis in the IS/MND utilizes information provided in the 2012 Master Plans EIR, the IS/MND is an independent, project-specific document and does not rely on the 2012 Master Plans EIR for CEQA "tiering" as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. The biological resources mitigation measures in the 2012 Master Plans EIR were reviewed for applicability to the Phase III project tailored as appropriate to be applicable to the proposed project, and determined through the project-specific analysis to be sufficient to reduce Phase III project impacts to a less than significant level. G-2. This comment recommends that the IS/MND specifically state that the MND will include all mitigation measures included in the Final 2012 Master Plans EIR. Refer to response to comment G-1. The IS/MND is an independent, project-specific document and does not rely on the 2012 Master Plans EIR for tiering purposes. Mitigation measures Bio-IA through Bio-IF were determined to be applicable and sufficient to reduce project-specific biological resource impacts to a less than significant level. Changes to the 2012 Master Plans EIR mitigation would not affect the mitigation measures provided in the IS/MND. Copies ofthe IS/MND, including all mitigation measures, were provided to the wildlife agencies during public review for the proposed project. No comment letters from the wildlife agencies were received. G-3. This comment states that is not clear how access will be provided to the Shadowridge area of Vista or the Ocean Hills Country Club area of Oceanside, and what additional system modifications would be necessary to connect these customers to the system. As shown in Figure 6 ofthe IS, existing pipelines extend from the proposed ES 4A project component to the Ocean Hills Golf Course and Shadowridge WRR No unidentified system modifications would be required to connect these customers to the recycled water system. As described in the Project Description/Environmental Setting section ofthe IS, no new pipelines would need to be installed as part ofthe ES 4A project components. 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. No new access would be required. ATKINS — CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-22 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES G-4. G-5. G-6. 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 avoided, then minimized and then mitigated. Putting in language that says wetlands impacts are being avoided does not demonstrate exactly what has been done to assure that there has been full compliance with this required process. Bio l-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 constmction or permanent impacts. This should include not just what is identified as connecting linkages in the HMP, but actual on-the ground movement corridors that have been modified over time because of construction and other barriers that have changed historic movement pattems since the MHCP corridors were mapped 15 years ago. See Wildlife Corridor study submitted to the city as part of the analysis done for the new Carlsbad High School by Dudek in April 2010. The program level EIR has not included appropriate reference to the adopted Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and such subsequent watershed management plans that may be adopted prior to these Phase III projects moving forward. Reference to the AHWMP as a guidelines document was included in the city's adopted Drainage Master Plan and should also be incorporated in this project level and the program level EIR as a guidelines document Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to address these concems. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard On Behalf of Preserve Calavera Cc: Bryand Duke CDFG, Janet Stuckrath USFWS RESPONSES G-4. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe IS checklist; incorporation of project design and construction features identified for Biological Resources and Hydrology and Water Quality in Appendix A ofthe IS Checklist; and, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-IB, Bio-lC, Bio-IE, and Bio-IR 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-IB 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 cleariy delineate the edge ofthe 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-IE and, through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IF, will retain a qualified biologist to perform contractor awareness training to inform construction crews ofthe 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 ^ ATKINS 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) ofthe IS checklist all ofthe Phase III 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 CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 Page RTC-23 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III 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 actvities 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-IB do not apply to the proposed project. G-6. This comment states that the 2012 Master Plans EIR does not include appropriate reference to the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and other plans that may be adopted prior the Phase III projects moving forward. The comment also states that the AHWMP was incorporated into the City's drainage master plan and should be incorporated in the IS/MND. The comment as it relates to the 2012 Master Plan EIR does not apply to the proposed project The Agua Hedionda WMP^ 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 III 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. ' Tetra Tech. 2008. Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan. Produced for the City of Vista. August. (JV ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-24 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES COMMENTS RESPONSES LEHER H. LEUCADIA WASTEWATER DISTRICT LEUCADIA IWA5TWATER DISTRICT LEADERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AltAN immHN. OiRtCTOfi 1>AV!0 KULCHJ.N. DIRKTOR OONAtP F, OMITIO. WRECTOR October 19, 2012 Ref: 13-3462 H-2. Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner Planning Division City of Carlsljad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re; Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Phase III Recycled Water Project EIA12-02) H-1. Dear Ms. Kennedy: The teucadia Wastewater Distrid ("tWD') completed its review of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the Phase 111 Recycled Water Project and has serious concems wth the document's failure to accurately describe and disclose potential impads d the Expansion Segment 8 of the proposed Projed ("ESS"). Unlike other elements ofthe Projed that would expand recycled water into areas not curredty served, ESS is designed to replace an existing public service. ESS indudes a construction of approximately 2.800 linear fed of new pipeline across a private resort, golf course and regional waterway to supply recycled water to the south course of the ta Costa Resort & Spa. The south course currentiy receives recycled water from the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant f Gafner Plant") that is owned and operated by tWD. The effect of ESS would be to terminate the Gafner Plant as the dedicated source of recycled water to the south course and cause abandonment of the facility, which has no other customer for recycled water. The MND fails to address the physicd impads assodated with shutting down the Gafner Plant and new Impacts that would result from construdion d duplicate replacement facilities across a private resort, golf course and regional watenway. 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. As describe in more detail below, neither assumption is corred. tWD submits that constmction of a new pipeline to duplicate the service of an existing public facility is not a vwse expenditure of public funds. Nonetheless, if the Cartsbad Municipal Water District f CMWD") wishes to pursue this course d action, it must first prepare and environmental impad report ("EIR") that fully discloses and a>nstders afl environmental impads related to construction of new, redundant facilities and the resulting physical shut-down of an existing plant. H-1. This comment states that the IS/MND does not address the potential abandonment of the Gafner Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) or the construction of new pipeline across the La Costa golf course property. The IS/MND does not propose the physical abandonment of the Gafner WRF. Page IS-3 of the IS has been updated to make this clarification. The Gafner WRF is a Leucadia Wastewater District facility and the future use or abandonment ofthe Gafner WRF will be determined by the Leucadia Wastewater District. None ofthe Phase III project components would necessitate demolition or any other physical change to the plant, as discussed in greater detail in the City of Carisbad Utilities Department's (Utilities Department) letter dated November 6, 2012, which is included as Attachment A to this RTC. The Phase III project does not commit the CMWD to constructing a new pipeline. As stated in Project Description/Environmental Setting on page IS-8 ofthe IS, CMWD could purchase or lease an existing pipeline directly from Leucadia Wastewater District to serve the South La Costa golf course. This analysis assumes that a new pipeline will be built in order to analyze the worst case scenario. The IS/MND does address the portion of ES 8 that would cross the La Costa golf course property if a new pipeline would be constructed. As stated in Project Description/ Environmental Setting on page IS-8 ofthe IS, 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 ofthe existing public ROW. Although this portion of ES 8 is not within an existing public ROW, it is still located in a previously disturbed area. This comment erroneously states that the analysis concludes that construction ofthe pipeline would not cause any environmental impacts. Due to the proposed pipeline's proximity to undeveloped areas, including wetlands. Section 4 of the IS checklist concluded that implementation of ES 8 would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources and mitigation measures Bio-IA through Bio-IF would be required. H-2. This comment introduces the comments that are addressed in responses to comments H-3 through H-14. Refer to the responses to these comments. Portions of this comment pertain to the adequacy ofthe Recycled Water Master Plan. Please also refer Utilities Department letter responses to comments 5 and 6. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-25 November 14, 2012 H-3. H-4. H-5. COMMENTS Proiect Description The Project description for the ES8 segment does not accurately describe the ultimate purpose d the ESS Project element, which is to replace and cause the abandonment of the Gafner Plant. Instead, the MND erroneously identifies the Gafner Plant as an Inactive facility (See. e.g., Figure 9,). For the record, the Gafner Rant has been the only supply of recycled water lo the south La Costa golf course since the early 1960's. Due to increased regulatory requirements there were Intermittent periods of time where recycled water was not delivered to south course, the Gafner Plant was upgraded in 1993 to meet new regulatory standards for recycled water, including a one million gallon per day fiitratlon plant that provides a third stage of treatment over and above Gafner's original primary and secondary facilities. LWD has supplied 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 City of Carlsbad since the early 1980's. Its operations are ongoing and LWD has no plans to abandon the facility. The MND Relied Upon Erroneous Statements And Assumptions Contained In The Recvcled Water Master Plan The MND's erroneous conclusions regarding the status of the Gafner Plant appear to be based upon inaccurate statements and conclusions found in its Recycled Water Master Plan ("Master Plan") and its EIR that were recently circulated for public re^rfew and comment, including the following statements found in the Master Plan at Section 2.7.5, pp. 2-20-21: 1. "CMWD staff have stated ttiat the aging nature of the Gafner WRP has led to a number of operational issues" As the General Manager for owner and operator of the Gafner Plant, I can assure you that this statement is incorrect. The Gafner Plant has, with few Interruptions, continuously supplied recycled water to under its contract wth Carlsbad, since operations of ttie upgraded fadllties began in 1993. There are no operational issues jeopardizing the viability of the Plant, and most importantly, no plan by LWD to terminate its operation. 2. "Gafner WRP has frequent start ups and shut downs that most likely exacerbate tha operational issues that CMWD currently pays to resolve." Again, this erroneously assumes that there are operational issues. Operations at the Gafner Plant do start up and shut down frequently due to the south course's varying demands for recycled water. However, this is a condition that has existed for decades and it has not interfered with the viability of the Gafner Plant. More Important, the price CMWD pays for recycled water has never varied based upon start ups or shut downs of the Gafner Plant 3. "rrjhe Gafner WRP Is not optimally utilized since the south golf course demand Is far less than the minimum amount of recycled water that CMWD is required to purchase from LWWD. To further compound tho problem, the La Costa Resort & Spa furttier reduces recycled water demand to its south golf course by blending Gafner RWP effluent with potable water to decrease TDS concentrations for irrigation of goff course tees and putting greens." This assumption is flawed because, until recently, LWD was under the impression that it was supplying the full south course demand for recycled virater. which is tess than the take or pay contract amount with Carlsbad, Hwever, the second sentence of this statement reflects the fact that Carisbad has chosen to allow La Costa to supplement its demand with potable water despite the fact that the City's Recycled Water Ordinance No. 43 requires recycled water to be used. II is possible that the full take or pay amount could have been utilized under the contract if the City had followed its own ordinance, which would have saved a significant amount of expenditures for unused recycled water. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES H-3. This comment states that the description of ES 8 does not accurately describe the purpose ofthe 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 ofthe Utilities Department response letter The project does not propose the abandonment of the Gafner Plant. The new pipeline ESS has been sized for additional recycled water deliveries to numerous locations along its alignment, and to OMWD. However, the activity or inactivity of the Gafner Plant, and the CMWD use of the facility, do not affect the analysis of the ES 8 project component. No revisions to the IS/MND are required in response to this comment. H-4. The section of the letter states that the conclusions found in the Program EIR and IS/ MND are based on incorrect information regarding the status ofthe Gafner Plant and include comments on issues regarding the adequacy ofthe Recycled Water Master Plan. Please refer to the Utilities Department response to comments 8 through 13. H-5. This section of the letter comments on the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master Plan. It does not address the analysis ofthe environmental impacts ofthe 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. V ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-26 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES H-5. cont. H-6. In addition the quality of the recycled water supplied from Gafner has consistently met requirements of the contrad with Carlsbad since the advanced treatment facility began operating in 1993 Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that recycled water produced by the City's recycled water system would be any different with regard to its TDS concentrations, and as such the circumstance in which potable water is used would not be changed by the Project. Therefore, LWD reiterates that the Cit/s assumptions are incorrect and it was at the full discretion of the City to not maximize the take or pay component of the agreement. »mhe U Costa Resort & Spa In 2010 indicated that they are planning on significant changes, which include reducing the amount of In-lgated turf, and piping potable water to the greens and tees. These changes will further reduce their irrigation demand on the recycled water supply." Presuming these facts are true, they indicate a reduced demand for recycled wafer, further questioning the logic d expending additional capital funds to provide redundant facilities to provide recycled water to a customer with reduced demand. The Master Plan also includes several other erroneous assumptions regarding the Gafner Plant used as justification for Its conclusion that abandoning the Gafner Plant is warranted. For example the Master Plan assumed that maximizing the Gafner Plad would require replacement of 27,000 feet of secondary affluent return pipeline from the Encina Wastewater Authonty ("EWA") Plant This pipeline has significant remaining useful life and. therefore, replacement is not needed. The Master Plan includes a cost to expand tha Gafner Plant with membrane filtration and reverse osmosis wrtilch are not necessary to meet current waste water 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 ddtars to maximize use d the Gafner Plant (See Section 4.4.3) Most importantly, the Master Plan did not consider the altemative of continuing use of the existing Gafner Plant facilities under a renegotiated agreemert to continue a semce thai has been in place for more than 50 years, an altemative that would not require any major ^pita investment For example, LWD staff has been meeting with Carlsbad staff since 2007 with goal of extending the recycled water agreement for services to the La Costa south course. Although the negotiations betvireen LWD and Carisbad never reached fruition, any inclusions in the MND that rely upon the price of recyded water as a basis for pursuing abandonment of the Gafner Plant are not supportable because the option of modifying the price has never been pursued by CMWD. The erroneous assumptions and errors in the Master Plan were carried fonrard into its prograrn EIR and ultimately into the Project MND that includes ES8. These assumptions preverited accurate consideration of environmental impads because they resulted in an erroneous Project description, environmental setting and baseline. H-6. The comment states that the erroneous assumptions in the Master Plan were carried forward to the 2012 Master Plans EIR and IS/MND. As noted in the responses provided by the City (found in Attachment A to the RTC), the analysis conducted as part of the 2012 Master Plans EIR is based on accurate assumptions and therefore no revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. H-7. This comment introduces the comments that are addressed in responses to comments H-14 through H-17. Refer to the responses to these comments. H-8. This comment states that Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek are missing from the Notice of Completion for the project and Figure 9 ofthe 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 IS/MND. However, in response to this comment Figure 9 has been updated to identify Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek. H-7. H-8. Biological and Wetland Impacts The MND fails to disclose and discuss significant potential impacts to biological resources, particularly those associated wnth wetland habitats due to, among other things, the following: 1 The Notice Of Completion Form fails to identify two waterways within two miles d the proposed Projed, including Batiquitos Lagoon, and Encinitas Creek. Segment ES8 is within two miSes of ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-27 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES COMMENTS RESPONSES H-8. cont. H-9. H-10. H-11. H-12. these watenways. In addition, Figure 9 does not identify San Marcos Creek, which crosses Et 'Camino Real, and Endnitas Creek, which crosses La Costa Avenue. Attached please find a Google earth image which shows these creeks, which drain into Batiquitos Lagoon. Both El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue currently have bridges that cross these creeks. 2 The MND analysis of flood plain issues is inadequate. Page IS-51 identifies the Mearkle Dam as being in dose proximity to ESS, when in reality, this dam is far from the project site and poses little threat. We have attached a second Google image that identifies the location of the Mearkle Dam in relation to the ESS expansion site for reference. At the same time, the MND fails to identify floodpiains/flooding issues related to the South course of the La Costa golf course, which is in the 100 year floodplain. The MND fails to disdose how the new ESS pipeline to the south golf course would impad the 100 year floodplain and San Marcos Creek. Page IS-50 indicates that there is no potential to impact flooding because the pipelines would be underground, but fails to mention that the pipes would be attached to the bridges on El Camino Real and La Costa Canyon in some fashion, and no analysis has been conducted regarding the potential for these bridge modifications to impad flooding. Furthermore, there is no information provided to describe how ESS constaidion would occur within the floodplain of San Marcos Creek, where the pipeline leaves El Camino Real. 3. The MND erroneously states that the Projed will occur within "public rights of way and easements." However, the ESS indudes a segment of pipeline on the La Costa Resort, where the City does not currently have an easement, and as indicated above, this area is within the floodplain of San Marcos Creek. As a result, the MND assumption that there will be no impads because all Projed activity wil be within existing rights of way and easements is not supported by evidence. 4 The MND fails to identify potential impads to wetlands and riparian habitats lhat could result from the installation of the ESS pipeline extension. The MND indicates that trenchless methods will be used to install the San Marcos Creek crossing in the south La Costa gdf course for ESS. {Construction Schedule and Methtxls, p. IS-16.) However, there Is no discussion of the spedfic method that would be used to a-oss the San Marcos Creek along El Camino Real, and Endnitas Creek along La Costa Avenue. As indicated above, there are bridges crossing these creeks and each of these areas. Large areas of salt marsh occupy the margins of Batiquitos Lagoon and significant strands of fresh water marsh are present where the San Marcos and Encinitas Creeks enter the Lagoon, under the bridges on El Camino Real and Endnitas Creek and the potential for a Projed to create dired significant impads during construdion has not been adequately assessed. No mitigation for these potential impacts has been provided. Furthermore, the MND indicates that the "jack and bore" trenchless method wouW be used for the crossing of the San Marcos Creek in the South La Costa Golf Course. This is the not the most cost effedive or appropriate method for crossing a creek with a pressure pipeline. Generally. Horizontal Oiredional Drilling methods are used. Without additional informatton. there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that no potentially significant environmental impads to biological resources and wetlands would occur. Archeology Impacts The MND fails to identify the potential for the proposed trenchless construction to impad archeological resources within the San Marcos Creek floodplain. Page lS-37 indicates that there is no potential for impacts to archeological resources, because all construdion would occur wthin public rights of way. However, a portion of ESS includes construdion within the San Marcos Creek floodplain, and the "jack H-9. 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 ESS 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 ofthe creek crossings. The proposed pipes would be attached to the side ofthe 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. H-10. 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 ofthe public right-of-way. The description ofthe 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. H-11. 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 potenhal impacts. As stated in the comment, the IS/MND describes construction ofthe 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. ATKINS CMWD Phase 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. Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 Page RTC-28 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES In response to this comment page IS-17 ofthe IS/MND has been updated as follows to specifically describe construction in the Encinitas Creek area: Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase III project would utilize typical construction equipment including dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation project components would utilize open trenching or trenchless (directional drilling or jack-and-bore) methods. Open trench pipeline construction would require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the diameter of the pipe and its depth. Trenchless recycled water pipeline project components include crossing Polomgr Airport Road along Avenida Encinos (ES 2), crossing the BNSF roilrood trgcks (ES 2), gnd crossing San Marcos Creek in the South La Costa golf course (ES 8). Encinitos Creek currently flows through g culvert under La Costa Avenue. PipeHne under La Costa Avenue (ES 8) would be installed in the roadwgy right-of-wov in the soil beneoth the road surface and obove the culvert using on open trench. The culvert would not be directiv offected bv construction. Two portions of ES 8 pipeline would be installed on the sides of existing bridges: an existina bridae 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 reguire ground-disturbing construction activity. The instollgtion of pipelines within roodwgys may, as deemed necessgry, require o temporary lane or roodwgy 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 IS/MND concurs with the comment that ES 8 is located within the immediate vicinity of wetland and riparian habitat. Therefore, the IS/MND determined that potential indirect impacts to wetland and riparian habitat would occur As identified on pages IS-34 and IS-35, mitigation measures Bio-IB through Bio-IF would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, no revisions to the IS/MND are required in response to this comment. ^5 ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-29 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES H-12. cont. H-13. H-14. H-15. COMMENTS and bore" construdion under San Marcos Creek has the potential to impact archeological resources. The MND fails to identify and mitigate for ardieological impads. The MND fails to acknowledge the Impad of causing the abandonment of the Gafner Plant, a public fadlity that is currently operational. The Gafner Plant is repeatedly described as an inadive facility creating the erroneous belief that the proposed abandonment is an existing condition. (See Figures 2 and 9 pages tS-5 and IS-14, respedively) The reality is that the proposed Project would result in significant environmental effeds to provide a utility service that is already being provided by an existing fadlity. The MND has failed to analyze the potential impad that would result from the loss of recyded water capacity if the Gafner Plant is forced to be abandoned. PamoHllon Impacts The MND completely fails to address the potential impads that would be associated with demolition and replacement d the Gafner Plant if ESS forces the shutdown of the fadlity Demolition d the Gafner Plad could be a potential outcome of the projed that would have the potential to cause significant air quality traffic and other environmental impacts, such as hazard waste assodated with removal of the materials. The MND completely fails to address the consequences of its unilateral attempt to cause the abandonment and demolition of the Gafner Plant. Condusion LWD appreciates the CMWD's desire to expand its recyded water capadty for the region. However LWD takes issue with the CMWD's assumption that the Gafner Plant is no longer viable and assumption that it makes sense from an environmental or public policy point of view to replace one pubiic fadlity with another. Surely in today's environment where public resources are scarce, there is no justification for a public agency to expend public funds to duplicate what is already in existence. For these reasons. LWD respedfully submits that the best course of adion will be for the CMWD to abandon the ESS segment d the Projed. Otheiwise, if the CMWD wishes to pursue ESS, it must first prepare an environmental impad report that (t) fully discloses potential impads associated with construdion of new. redundant facilities and the destruction of existing public facility, (ii) identifies alternatives that could avoid significant impads and (iii) identifies mitigation measures that could reduce impacts to a level below significance. fy^aurJlBiishee Generai Manager cc: File RESPONSES H-12. This comment states that the IS/MND fails to disdose the potential for trenchless construction to impact archaeological resources within the San Marcos Creek floodplain. Section 5b) ofthe IS checklist has been revised to clarify that construction would take place within existing roadways orthe 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. H-13. This comment states that the IS/MND does not address the potential abandonment of the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant and does not consider operation ofthe plant as an existing condition. The Phase III project does not propose to abandon the Gafner WRF. None ofthe Phase III project components would necessitate demolition or any other physical change to the plant. It is unclear what environmental effects would be caused by implementation ofthe 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 III project. Figures 2 and 9 have been corrected; however, the operation or inactivity ofthe Gafner plant does not affect the potential environmental impacts ofthe proposed project. H-14. This comment states that the IS/MND fails to discuss the potential impacts of demolition and replacement ofthe Gafner WRF. The Phase III project does not propose the demolition or replacement of the Gafner WRF. None of the Phase III 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. H-15. 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 III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-30 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES Go:>gle earth ATKINS CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-31 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES RESPONSES ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-32 November 14, 2012 ATTACHMENT A City of Carlsbad Utilities Department Letter dated November 8, 2012 60 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES V O f v^>\ CIT ^ CARLSBAD Utilities Department www.carlsbadca.gov November 8, 2012 Paul Bushee, General Manager Leucadia Wastewater District 1960 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Phase III Recycled Water Project, (EIA 12-02) Dear Mr. Bushee: The Utilities Department is responding to your comment letter dated October 19, 2012 regarding the subject Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase III Recycled Water Project, EIA 12-02. The City's Planning Department is responding with a separate letter to your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Measures. Your comments are restated below followed by our response. Comment 1, Page No. 1, First Paragraph: "Unlike other elements of the Project that would expand recycled water into areas not currently served, ESS is designed to replace an existing public service." Response: Pipeline Segment ESS will expand recycled water into areas that are currently not being provided recycled water service from CMWD's recycled water distribution system. The pipeline ESS 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 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 ESS alignment and construction schedule. We are aware that OMWD has begun design work for the expansion of their recycled water pipeline infrastructure in its northwest quadrant from a supply source located in El Camino Real. • Landscape irrigation to the commercial center at the intersection of La Costa Boulevard and El Camino Real. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Page RTC-33 November 14, 2012 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES Nov. 8, 2012 Page 2 Comment 2, Page No. 1, Second Paragraph: "The effect of ESS 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 ESS 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 ESS pipeline has been sized to receive recycled water from the Gafner Plant as well, provided LWD upgrades their existing effluent pump station at the Gafner Plant to provide the required flow rates and water pressure for CMWD's use within its distribution pipeline system, and a new agreement for purchase of recycled water is successfully negotiated between CMWD and LWD. Comment 3, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "The MND fails to address the physical impacts associated with shutting down the Gafner Plant and new impacts that would result from construction of duplicate replacement facilities across a private resort, golf course and regional waterway." Response: Shutting down the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase III Recycled Water Project; and therefore, no discussion is required in the MND. The pipeline ESS 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 (ESS). 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 ESS (refer to Response to Comment 2). With regard to Pipeline ESS, 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 ESS will not duplicate services provided to CMWD's irrigation customers, refer to response to Comment 1. Pipeline ESS 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 significantly higher than CMWD's other sources. In addition, the existing Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility (CWRF) in combination with Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) has sufficient capacity that can be utilized to supply recycled water to the La Costa South Golf Course as well as the other use sites located along the alignment of Pipeline ESS 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 /VTI/-! MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 /Vl IvINd Page RTC 34 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES Nov. 8, 2012 Page 3 construction cost for Pipeline Segment ESS within a few years based on the cost savings from utilizing the 5, other sources of recycled water available to CMWD, and the increased recycled water demand from cont CMWD customer use sites along the alignment of pipeline ESS will further assist in lowering cost to CMWD's system through economy of scale. 6. 8. 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 ESS as well as a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase III recycled water project. Abandoning the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase III Project or the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. The project description in the MND is modified to make this clear, refer to response to Comment 2. Figure 9 in the MND is modified to show that the Gafner Plant is an existing facility. Pipeline ESS 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 ofthe ESS segment does not describe the ultimate purpose of the ESS Project element, which is to replace and cause abandonment of the Gafner Plant. Instead, the MND erroneously identifies the Gafner Plant as an inactive facility (See, e.g.. Figure 9.)." Response: Abandoning the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the proposed Phase III Recycled Water Project. The ultimate purpose of expanding the recycled water distribution system is to reduce CMWD's demand on the imported water supply, and provide a more reliable water supply to 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. The purpose of pipeline ESS is not to replace and cause abandonment for the Gafner Plant The new pipeline ESS 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 S, 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 Piyler of Water Operations, dated September 3, 200S, which states "operational issues (adequate chlorine concentration time and turbidity) prevented the delivery of recycled water." These operational issues persisted from March 14* through April IS*." Our intent was not to highlight actual operational or water quality issues of the Gafner Plant which can be obtained from the Regional Water JVTI/'I Kl C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 /\l IVllMD Page RTC 35 (P3 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES Nov. 8, 2012 Pag^4 Quality Control Board records, but rather, to indicate that the historic delivery to the La Costa South Golf Course has encountered operational issues in the actual quantity and timely delivery of recycled water to CMWD's customer as stated in a letter prepared by LWD. The golf course staff has indicated that they do not take recycled water on a daily basis from the Gafner Plant supply due to changes in the weather and available on site storage in their storage pond. LWD has 8. indicated that starting the Gafner Plant up and shutting it down with the short notice provided by the cont. South Golf Course operator does create operational issues. By implementing Pipeline ESS, 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 g 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." 20. Response: The changes being made by the La Costa Resort operations wiil 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. AT IXI IVIC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 /\l IVII>I3 PageRTC-36 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES Nov. 8, 2012 Page 5 Comment 11, Page 2: 'The Master Plan assumed that maximizing the Gafner Plant would require replacement of 27,000 feet of secondary affluent pipeline from the Gafner Plant The Master Plan includes a cost to expand the Gafner Plant with membrane filtration and reverse osmosis which are not necessary to meet current discharge requirements for the Gafner Plant. As a result of the false assumptions above and others included in the Master Plan, it provides an inflated cost of several million dollars to maximize use of the Gafner Plant." Response: In accordance with LWD's Asset Management Plan, dated June 11, 200S prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc., replacement funding was clearly noted for the secondary effluent pump station and force main utilized in supplying secondary treated water to the Gafner Plant The total replacement amount listed in LWD's Asset Management Plan was $15,140,000 with approximately $6 million identified to be required between the years 2011 through 2015. If the Gafner Plant is expanded and used to serve new CMWD customers, more stringent regulations from other groundwater basins will also apply such as iron, manganese, and TDS, which is presently not addressed in the discharge order for the Gafner Plant. Water quality could therefore be a potential issue when utilizing the Gafner Plant supply source within the CMWD recycled water distribution system which needs to be considered. Planning level estimates were utilized for six supply alternative analyses in the 2012 RWMP. Alternative No. 3 consisting of maximizing the Gafner WRP was more than three times more expensive than any other alternative available to CMWD's distribution system. Comment 12, Page 2, "Most importantly, the Master Plan did not consider the alternative of continuing use of the existing Gafner Plant facilities under a renegotiated agreement to continue a service that has been in place for more than 50 years, an alternative that would not require any major capital investment" Response: The Master Plan included six Recycled Water Supply Alternatives. Four of the alternatives include the use of the Gafner Plant under an extension of the current agreement. These four alternatives did not include any capital investment in the Gafner Plant; however, since the proposed Phase III Recycled Water Project demand is greater than existing available supplies, major capital investments by CMWD is required to secure new recycled water supplies for all alternatives. The recommended supply alternative, maximizes the efficient use of CMWD's CWRF, and the MWRF as presented in the Recycled Water Master Plan which was based on the lowest cost recycled water supply to CMWD. We also want to clarify, that the current agreement between LWD and CMWD dated March 25, 1991, is not fifty years. We provided notice on June 5, 2012 to provide a one year notice to terminate the agreement. The written notice was based on an economic analysis of continuing to use the Gafner Plant compared to the other recycled water sources available to CMWD. City of Carlsbad and LWD staff had several meetings over the past four years discussing the terms of a replacement or amended agreement primarily in relation to the purchase cost and the ability for LWD to meet pressure and supply requirements for delivery into CMWD's distribution system. Some of these meetings are noted in the October 14, 2009 letter submitted by LWD to Mark Stone of CMWD, where LWD included a proposal to modify terms of the current agreement for example. Letters from LWD as well as discussions at meetings with LWD were referenced in reviewing the facilities required to expand CMWD's recycled water distribution system in its 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan and also the various source of supply alternatives available to CMWD presently. yyy CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 Page RTC-37 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES Nov. 8, 2012 Page 6 13. Comment 13, Page 2, "Any conclusions in the MND that rely upon the price of recycled water as a basis for pursuing abandonment of the Gafner Plant are not supportable because the option of modifying the price has never been pursued by CMWD." Response: The MND is an evaluation ofthe environmental impacts ofthe Phase III Recycled Water Project as recommended in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. CMWD has met several times with LWD to discuss the option of modifying the price and terms of recycled water sales to CMWD. These proposals were considered, but remained as a high cost alternative relative to other sources of supply. The City is willing to discuss further the cost of the recycled water from the Gafner Plant. We have not abandoned the Gafner Plant. We note that other improvements are required to efficiently utilize the Gafner Plant as part of an expanded recycled water distribution system for CMWD. Various additional improvements are required to efficiently utilize the Gafner Plant which do not accommodate the current method of supplying recycled water by LWD. This has been discussed with LWD staff at meetings with City staff. It is important for CMWD to expand its recycled water distribution through cost effective improvements. Sincerely, David P. Ahles, P.E. Senior Engineer yyyi^l CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012 Page RTC-38 Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study Case Number: EIA 12-02 Project Title: Phase III Recycled Water Project Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Contact Person: Barbara Kennedy (760) 602-4626 Project Location: The Phase III Recycled Water Project (Phase III project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in the County of San Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) service area (see Figure 1). A small portion ofthe 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 propertv. 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 ofthe 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and Phase 11), Phase 111, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase 111, would expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase 111 project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase III project would expand the treatment capacity (from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase III project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape ATI^I WAC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 #11 IVIIllS PagelS-1 November 14. 2012 (.7 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 III project would be constructed within the CWRF, within existing and planned roadway ROW, the South La Costa Golf Course, and within the BNSF railroad right of way. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Table 1. Existing land uses in the project vicinity include residences, commercial centers, industrial and business parks, and utility infrastructure. Acronyms: AB Assembly Bill afy acre feet per year BMP Best Management Practice BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway CARB California Air Resources Board CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDP Coastal Development Permit CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CH4 Methane CIPs Capital Improvement Projects CMP Congestion Management Program CMWD Carlsbad Municipal Water District CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide C02e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CWRF Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility DEH County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health DOC Department of Conservation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIR Environmental Impact Report ES Expansion Segment EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility FHWA Federal Highway Administration MFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan HMP Habitat Management Plan HPMR Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MG million gallon MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program N2O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NOx Nitrogen oxides OMWD Olivenhain Municipal Water District PFCs Perfluorocarbons PMio Respirable particulate matter PM2.5 Fine particulate matter RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy ROW right(s)-of-way RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SFg Sulfur Hexafluoride SIP State Implementation Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VID Vista Irrigation District VOC Volatile organic compounds VWD Vallecitos Water District ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-2 Septembor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 0 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 ofthe 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 1 and Phase II), Phase 111, and Build- out. Phases I and 11 were previously implemented as part of a previous RWMP program. It is anticipated that an additional 3,135 acre feet per year (afy), or 2.8 million gallons per day, of recycled water would be required to serve demand at the completion of Phase III (Year 2020). The anticipated demand from inside the CMWD service area in 1,985 afy, and 1,150 afy would be needed by the neighboring agencies. The project would implement the Phase III facility improvements to meet the additional demand. Phase III includes the most feasible alignments for expansion of the recycled water system. This would expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad, as well as fill in existing service areas, and begin initial expansion into the neighboring agencies through wholesale service to VID for the Shadowridge Golf Course, OMWD for irrigation use at schools and common areas in the Village Park area of Encinitas, and Oceanside at the El Camino Country Club Golf Course, Ocean Hills Golf Course, and MiraCosta College. The Phase 111 project would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Phase III project consists ofthe following facility improvements. Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion The CWRF is owned by CMWD; however, the Encina Wastewater Authority has been contracted to provide operation and maintenance of the CWRF through a memorandum of understanding dated May 1, 2005. CWRF currently operates as a tertiary treatment plant treating secondary effluent from the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF), located adjacent to the CWRF. To meet future demand, the RWMP recommends the expansion of CWRF, maintaining current supply from the Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility, and abandoning discontinuing CMWD use ofthe existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. The Phase III expansion of the CWRF would increase capacity by installing additional filtration units and a chlorine contact basin within the existing facility, as shown on Figure 3. The expansion would increase capacity by an additional 4.0 mgd, for a total capacity of 8.0 mgd, to meet Phase 111 demand and replace the 0.6 mgd of discontinued capacity from the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant The CWRF already has approximately 14.4 mgd of pumping capacity and no additional pumps would be installed as part of the project. Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion The Phase III project would include the installation of new pipelines, conversion of existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and* retrofitting landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water and provide supply to proposed land development projects. The recycled water expansion segments that would require new pipeline are described below. A total of be 96,600 linear feet of pipeline is proposed for the Phase III expansion segments. Jknri^l WkiC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 §\i IVII^IS Page IS-3 November 14, 2012 Pacific Ocean CMWD Service Boundary City of Carisbad Source: ESRI, 2010; SanGIS, 2011 0 ATKINS Miles N A REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND Future Tank Site Mahr Reservoir Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) ® Developer © Expansion Projects 9 Adjacent to Existing Customers Recycled Water Pipelines Existing Recycled Water Pipelines —— Developer imiMiiiiu Expansion Segment -1A mmmm Expansion Segment - 2 mmmm Expansion Segment - 4A Expansion Segment - 5 'mmoim Expansion Segment - 7 »- . ni; Expansion Segment - 8 — Expansion Segment - 9 mmmm Expansion Segment -18 Recycled Water Facilities CEI (2) Meter A WRF Tank V i Reservoir JL teucadia WRF H tWWD Pump Station Freeways Major Roads Local Streets Water Body Carlsbad City Limits San Diego County CMWD Boundary Pump Station Pressure Regulating Station Other Source: Carolla 2012 ATKINS 0 2,500 5,000 Feet N A PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT FACILITY LOCATIONS FIGURE 2 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This page intentionally left blank. yypi^ll^g CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 Page IS-6 November 14, 2012 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The future recycled water customers that would be added to the recycled water system as part of Phase III are located adjacent to existing facilities and would require conversion or retrofitting of existing facilities. These customers would not require any new pipeline to connect to the recycled water system. Expansion Segment 1 consists of a total of 9,400 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a system demand of 99 afy. As shown in Figure 4, ES 1 is located in the center of CMWD's service area in Zone 550 and consists of connecting customers in the business park surrounding Palomar Airport Road. ES 1 would be located within existing roads and CMWD ROW. Expansion Segment 2 consists of a total of 17,500 feet of 8-inch to 18-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of 782 afy. This segment in Zone 384 would extend the recycled water system north from CWRF along Avenida Encinas to the new power plant and across the lagoon, as shown in Figure 5. Expansion Segment 4A would evaluate the potential of serving demands within the VID and provide wholesale Service to VID at Shadowridge Water Reclamation Plant and the Ocean Hills Golf Course in Oceanside. No new pipelines would be installed for this project component by CMWD. As shown in Figure 6, Expansion Area 4A would make use of an existing 12-inch diameter pipeline in Melrose Avenue that would connect to an existing pipeline in Faraday Avenue in the 660 Zone. Expansion Area 4A would serve the Shadowridge Golf Course, which has an estimated demand of 300 afy, and the Ocean Hills Golf Course with a demand of 180 afy. Expansion Segment 5 consists of 46,100 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of 454 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 384, extending the recycled water distribution system north along El Camino Real to serve the second phase ofthe Robertson Ranch development several existing homeowners associations, and existing landscape irrigation. This segment also includes the El Camino Country Club within the city of Oceanside with a demand of 180 afy. ES 5 would be located within existing roads in CMWD and City of Oceanside ROW, as shown in Figure 7. Expansion Segment 7 consists of 7,000 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of 114 afy. ES 7 would provide service to the proposed Quarry Creek development a homeowners association, and existing school landscape in Zone 580 and MiraCosta College in Oceanside. A pressure regulator would potentially be required for this segment. However, if needed, this would be constructed on site as part of the Quarry Creek development and paid for by the developer. Need for the pressure regulator would be determined as part of design for the Quarry Creek development and considered in the environmental analysis for the Quarry Creek project. Therefore, the pressure regulator is not considered part of the proposed Phase III project. As shown in Figure 8, the anticipated alignment for ES 7 is along Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 consists of 9,900 feet of 6-inch to 12-inch diameter pipeline to serve La Costa Resort and Spa and OMWD demands with an ultimate system demand of 420 afy. This includes 2,800 feet of pipeline to feed the South La Costa golf course, which would connect Leucadia Wastewater District to the CMWD recycled water system. CMWD could purchase or lease an existing pipeline directly from Leucadia Wastewater District to serve the South La Costa golf course; however, this analysis assumes that a new pipeline will be built This segment would be a part of Zone 384. As shown in Figure 9, Expansion Segment 8 consists of a pipeline along El Camino Real that would connect CMWD's recycled water system to OMWD and existing landscape irrigation at La Costa Resort and Spa. ES 8 would be located within existing roads and CMWD ROW, with the exception ofthe pipeline to the South La Costa golf course, which may be placed outside ofthe 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 S-inch diameter pipeline with a Phase III system demand of 25 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 550, connecting several existing commercial irrigation demands north of Faraday Avenue to the existing recycled water distribution system. ES 18 would be located within existing roads in CMWD ROW, as shown in Figure 11. A'TI^I I^C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 **• •VilliiJ Page IS-8 November 14, 2012 Expansion Segment 1A Avg water usage • 99 afy No of meters - 56 No of customers - 17 Phase ill Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) • Expansion Project 1A 9 Adjacent to Existing Existing Recycled Water Pipelines mmmm Expansion Segment - 1A Carlsbad City Limits Source: Carollo 2012 ATKINS 600 1,200 N Feet A EXPANSION SEGMENT 1A FIGURE 4 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND Agua Hedionda Lagoon Expansion Segment 2 Avg water usage ~ 782 afy No of meters - 18 No of customers 13 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) • Expansion Project 2 ® Adjacent to Existing -Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Developer — Expansion Segment - 2 Pump Station A WRF Water Body Carlsbad City Limits o CMWD Boundary Source: Carollo 2012 ATKINS 800 1,600 N Feet A EXPANSION SEGMENT 2 FIGURE 5 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND C003 0"^ ^^^^ GREEN OAK Expansion Segment 4A Avg water usage » 300 afy No of meter stations ^ 1 No of interconnections = 2 No of customers s 1 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) # Expansion Project 4a Adjacent to Existing Other Expansion Projects Existing Sewer Outfall Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Inactive WRF Interconnection Flow Control and Meter Station Carlsbad City Limits Vista ^3 CMWD Boundary afy Acre Feet Per Year Source: Carollo 2012 ATKINS 900 1,800 N Feet A EXPANSION SEGMENT 4A FIGURE 6 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND ll Source: Carollo 2012 ATKINS 1,500 3,000 N Feet A EXPANSION SEGMENT 5 FIGURE 7 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND eP. S\ MSBURY \ 0126 C037 o VICTO"<^ AVALON (J, BERKELEY W'NTHROP c^s Expansion Segment 7 Avg water usage - 98 afy No of meters = 11 No of customers = 3 5^ & M/v, TIBURON Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) • Expansion Project 7 O Other Phase III Expansion Projects Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Developer • » Expansion Segment - 7 —- Other Phase III Pipelines Carlsbad City Limits Oceanside QJJIJ CMWD Boundary afy Acre Feet Per Year Source: Carollo 2012 ATKINS 1,140 N Feet A EXPANSION SEGMENT 7 FIGURE 8 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND GERANIUM 8 1- Or (J Expansion Segment 8 Avg water usage = 420 afy No of services s 2 No of interconnections - 1 No of meter stations - 1 No of customers = 2 C004 San Marcos Creek -j«-: LEVANTE Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) # Expansion Project 8 • Phase 111 LWWD to CM WD Demand Existing Recycled Water Pipelines V Expansion Segment - 8 A Leucadia WRF Mi LWWD Pump Station ^11^ Interconnection mj^ Metering Station Water Body Carlsbad City Limits Encinitas l^n CMWD Boundary Source: Carollo 2012 ATKINS 550 Feet 1,100 N A EXPANSION SEGMENT 8 FIGURE 9 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND Expansion Segment 9 Avg water usage - 91 afy No of meters = 6 No of customers - 7 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) 9 Expansion Project 9 Adjacent to Existing Existing Recycled Water Pipelines Developer Expansion Segment - 9 Pressure Regulating Station Water Body Carlsbad City Limits Encinitas CMWD Boundary Source: Carollo 2012 ATKINS 600 Feet 1,200 N A EXPANSION SEGMENT 9 FIGURE 10 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND Expansion Segment 18 Avg water usage = 25 afy No of meters » 12 No of customers = 1 Phase III Recycled Water Customers (Customer ID) Expansion Project 18 Other Phase III Expansion Projects Adjacent to Existing Existing Recycled Water Pipelines mmmm Expansion Segment -18 —- Other Phase III Pipelines fWi Pump Station Carlsbad City Limits Source: Carollo 2012 ATKINS 750 Feet 1,500 N A EXPANSION SEGMENT 18 FIGURE 11 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND 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 Mettiods The Phase III project would be completed between 2014 and 2020. Based on the 2012 RWMP, construction ofthe CWRF expansion, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would begin as early as 2014. ES 1 and ES 2 would begin construction as early as 2015. ES 4A would also be completed in 2015, but would not require any heavy construction activities. The CWRF expansion and Twin D tank construction or relocation would each take approximately 18 months to complete. Pipelines would be installed at a rate of 80 feet to 100 feet per day; therefore, pipeline project components would take between two months (ES 9) and 29 months (ES 5) to complete. Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase III project would utilize typical construction equipment including dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation project components would utilize open trenching or trenchless (directional drilling or iack-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 roadwav right-of-wav in the soil beneath the road surface and above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert would not be directiv affected bv 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 activitv. 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 ofthe Phase III project requires the affirmative vote ofthe 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 ofthe Phase III project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to various environmental topics. Applicable regulations are listed in Appendix A. Project Design and Construction Measures The CMWD has incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The project design features and construction measures are provided in Appendix A. JYTI^IKIC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 PagelS-17 November 14.2012 ^3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Table 1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses Project Component Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion The expansion would be located within the existing CWRF facility. The proposed chlorine contact basin and granular media filtration equipment would be located within a new concrete structure. The two concrete tanks that contain the treatment system would be surrounded by other CWRF facilities to the south, east and west and the EWPCF to the north. Existing vegetation within the CWRF facility site surrounding the structures consists of non-native and/or ornamental species. Expansion Segment 1 Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Corte del Nogal, Corte de Abeto, Yarrow Drive, Corta de la Pina, Cosmos Court, Corte del Cedro, and Las Palmas Drive. These roadways are within an existing business park including office and light industrial development. Expansion Segment 2 Pipelines would be located within the BNSF railroad ROW and the following existing roadways: Cannon Road, Avenida Encinas, Palomar Airport Road, and Oceanview Drive. Land uses along the rail corridor include the new power plant. Land uses along Avenida Encinas include power plant infrastructure, hotels, office and industrial parks, open space, the railroad track, and the CWRF. Land uses along Palomar Airport Road include open space and a hotel. Land uses along Oceanview Drive include mobile home residences. Expansion Segment 4A The existing pipeline is located within South Melrose Drive in the city of Vista. Land uses along this roadway include open space, industrial parks, commercial land use, single-family residences, and the Shadowridge Country Club and golf course. Expansion Segment 5 Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Vista Way, Haymar Drive, El Camino Real, Marron Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, Pointe Avenue, Tamarack Avenue, Palisades Drive, High Ridge Drive, Telescope Avenue, Pontiac Drive, Regent Road, Southampton Road, Chancery Court, Chelsea Court, Salisbury Court, Dorchester Place, Carnaby Court, Buckingham Lane, Kelly Drive, and Park Drive. Land uses along Vista Way include hotels and visitor serving commercial uses. El Camino Country Club and golf course, and medical offices. Land uses along Haymar Drive include open space, a driving range, and commercial land uses. Land uses along El Camino Real include commercial and entertainment land uses, multi-family and single-family residences, medical offices, and open space. Land uses along Marron Road include commercial land use, multi- family residences, Westfield Plaza mall, and open space. Land uses along Carlsbad Village Drive include multi- family and single-family residences. Pointe Avenue and Palisades Drive are located in a single family residential neighborhood north of Tamarack Avenue. Land uses along Tamarack Avenue include open space and single- family residences. High Ridge Drive and Telescope Avenue are located in a single-family residential development south of Tamarack Avenue, and Regent Road, Southampton Road, Chancery Court, Chelsea Court Salisbury Court, Dorchester Place, Carnaby Court, and Buckingham Lane are located in a single-family residential neighborhood east of El Camino Real. Land uses along Kelly Drive include single-family residences, open space, Kelly Elementary School, and Laguna Riviera City Park. Land uses along Park Drive include open space and Laguna Riviera City Park. Expansion Segment 7 Pipeline would be installed within the following existing roadways within a single-family residential neighborhood: Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 Portions of ES 8 would be installed within the following existing roadways: La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. Land uses along these roadways include open space, commercial development single-family and multi- family residential development, and the La Costa Resort and golf course. The remaining portion ofthe expansion segment would traverse La Costa golf course property from El Camino Real to the existing golf course lake. Expansion Segment 9 Pipeline would be installed in several existing roadways: Avenida Encinas, Ponto Drive, and Navigator Circle. Land uses along Avenida Encinas include the Lake Shore Garden mobile home residential neighborhood and the Poinsettia Village commercial development. Open space is located on either side of Ponto Drive. Navigator Circle is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. Expansion Segment 18 Pipeline would be installed in the existing Palmer Way and Impala Drive roadway ROW. These roadways are located in an existing business park including office and light industrial uses. 1.5 MG Steel Tank The new or relocated steel tank would be located on a currently graded site that contains two existing steel tanks for recycled water storage. The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline at the site. Existing vegetation adjacent to the steel tank site consists of non-native and/or ornamental species. The storage tank site is surrounded by single-family residential development. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-19 Soptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 Environmental Initial Study Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. • Aesthetics • Agriculture/Forestry Resources 1 1 Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources [ 1 Geology/Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials 1 I Hydrology/Water Quality • Land Use/Planning • Mineral Resources 1 [ Noise • Population/Housing • Public Services [ 1 Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Service Systems 1 1 Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) • I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared. • I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report is required. • I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required. Date City Planner Signature Date * ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-20 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR ifthe 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 ifthe City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there is one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there is mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-21 Soptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTALINITIAL 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 forthe Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase II Project in December, 1999, which included construction ofthe 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 ofthe 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? ^ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings Q ^ within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • • S • • • K • Explanation: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed expansion segments are below-ground installations, and the CWRF expansion consists of interior improvements to an existing facility. Following construction, the project would have no visual impact. The CWRF expansion and construction or relocation of the tank at the Twin D tank site would not result in temporary construction impacts because the construction area would be within the CMWD property, isolated from public view. However, temporary visual impacts would occur from construction of the expansion segments due to unsightly trenching and stockpiling in public roadways, and presence of heavy construction equipment. Disturbance of ground cover, excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction iyr|f|MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 •^••^'^ PagelS-22 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 III project during construction activities, including removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance ofthe 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, rocl< 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. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact 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 Q Q ^ Monitoring Program ofthe California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? yyriflMC CMWD Phase m Recycled water projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 iVII^«J PagelS-23 November 14. 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact • • • S • • • m • • • s • • • s b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Explanation: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ofthe 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 ofthe 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 agri(:ultural land would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? No Impact. The CMWD recycled water service area does not include any forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production (CDF 2003). No forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production occurs within the areas of the VID or Oceanside Water District where recycled water infrastructure alignments would be extended. No impact to forest land or timberland would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. See response to question 2c). No impact to forest land would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. See response to questions 2a) and 2c). No impact to agricultural land or forest land would occur. AT'I^IMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 •^••^•^ PagelS-24 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable i—i i—i rr-Ti i—i air quality plan? '—' '—' 1^ '—' b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially j—j Q ^ j—j to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air EZl ^ CH quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • • S • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? • • S • Explanation: a) Confiict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of air quality regulations for the SDAB. The most current air quality planning document for the SDAPCD and thus the applicable air quality plan to the Phase III project is the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) (SDAPCD 2009). This plan was prepared by the SDAPCD for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), to demonstrate how the SDAB would either maintain or strive to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The California SIP would also be applicable to the proposed project California SIP documents are prepared by CARB to demonstrate how the entire state of California will maintain or attain the NAAQS. The 2009 RAQS and SIP were developed based on growth assumptions, land use, and other information from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), which obtains information from the local jurisdictions general plans and growth assumptions. Growth assumptions made within the 2012 RWMP to establish appropriate future service requirements were derived from the City's Growth Database, SANDAG data, and studies from neighboring water districts. The CIP projects included in the 2012 RWMP were proposed to meet the projected buildout demand and would be implemented concurrently with development or as repairs are needed. The size and capacities of the recycled water CIP projects are based on the projected growth that would occur in the areas served by the CMWD. The Phase 111 project would implement CIP projects identified in the 2012 RWMP to meet future demand. These projects would not generate any additional population and no unplanned growth would be served by the projects. The proposed facilities are community service facilities, providing the infrastructure necessary to support planned population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in population growth that would exceed the population projections accounted for in the RAQS and SIP. Implementation ofthe Phase 111 project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and the impact would be less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant. The SDAPCD does not provide quantitative thresholds for determining the significance of construction or mobile source-related projects; however, the SDAPCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis screening level thresholds for new or modified stationary sources (SDAPCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3). These screening ATlflMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 **• •^••^•^ PagelS-25 November 14, 2012 ^1 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 III project that ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, placement of a new tank at the Twin D site, and the CWRF expansion would all be under construction in 2014. Construction ofthe 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 III project would be installed at a slower pace and over a longer period of time compared to the 2012 Master Plans EIR assumptions, and would therefore result in reduced maximum daily emissions compared to the EIR assumptions. The maximum daily emissions associated with the worst-case construction scenario are provided in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, implementation of the Sewer, Water, and Recycled Master Plans simultaneously, including the worst-case construction scenario for the Phase III project would result in less than significant emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction of the proposed CIP projects. The Phase III project would also implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Appendix A to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction of Phase III project including covering or applying soil stabilizer to unpaved surfaced, restoring disturbed areas when construction is complete, using alternative sources of power when feasible, installing air filters on construction engines, implementing a traffic control plan, locating staging areas away from residences, and limiting truck idling. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant air pollutant emissions during construction. Table 2 Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction Emission Source Maximum Dally Emissions, pounds per day Emission Source VOC NO, CO SO, 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 Includes hauling of imported and exported trench material 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. Estimates of particulate emissions take into account application of soil stabilizers to inactive areas during grading in mandatory compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55. VOC = Volatile organic compounds; NOx = Nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO^ = Sulfur Oxides; PMio = Respirable particulate matter; PM2.5 = Fine particulate matter Source: URBEMIS 2007. (3) 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 ofthe proposed expansion. Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips and not ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-26 September 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 4^ 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, PMio, 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), NO, (ozone precursor), PMio, 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 PMio and PM2.5, or exceed screening level thresholds of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOx). As discussed in Section 3 b), the project would not generate operational air pollutant emissions; therefore, only the potential cumulative impacts associated with construction-related air pollutant emissions are evaluated below. The County of San Diego's Guidelines for Determining Significance provide guidance for assessing the impact of cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants. According to these guidelines, a project would result in a cumulative impact if the proposed project alone or in combination with the construction of another cumulative project, would exceed the significance thresholds listed in Table 2 during construction. A localized pollutant concentration analysis is appropriate to the determination ofthe 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 ofthe VID and Oceanside services areas where recycled water service would be extended. As shown in Table 2, the worst-case simultaneous construction ofthe CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Sewer, Water, and Recycled Water Master Plans, including the worst-case construction ofthe Phase III project would not exceed the significance thresholds. The 2012 Master Plans EIR concluded that construction would not result in significant cumulative impact because cumulative construction projects would not take place at the same time or in the same location, and relatively short construction periods are anticipated for CIP projects. The proposed project construction would be consistent with the construction assumptions in the 2012 Master Plans EIR. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion ofthe 2012 Master Plans EIR, construction ofthe Phase III project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact during construction. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant. None of the departments within the CMWD are listed within the 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Report for San Diego County as an organization posing possible health risks to San Diego County with regards to TACs. The proposed Phase III facilities are similar to existing pipelines, storage tanks, and CWRF facilities and would not result in a new source of TACs. As discussed under question 3b), the proposed Phase III project would not result in a substantial net increase in vehicle trips, and would not contribute to severe traffic congestion issues with the potential to create carbon monoxide "hotspots" (defined as areas where high concentrations of carbon monoxide result from idling vehicles). Additionally, construction ofthe Phase III project would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations, including diesel exhaust from construction equipment. Therefore, while sensitive receptors (e.g., medical facilities and residences) exist along some Phase III pipelines, construction activity would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant. CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage Aflf I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 * iXIIHiJ PagelS-27 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 III project would be operating at various locations throughout the project area and would not take place all at once. Odorous hydrocarbons emissions would dissipate beyond the emission sources and would only temporarily affect receptors in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Construction-related operations would also be temporary in nature and would cease at the completion of the installations. Therefore, odor impacts associated with construction would be less than significant Based on CARB's list of common sources of odor complaints, recycled water projects do not typically result in a source of nuisance odors associated with operation. The pipelines would be located underground and would transport potable water. The storage tank would enclose potable water. The CWRF would continue to filter and disinfects secondary treated wastewater, rather than raw sewage, and the proposed expansion would not result in substantial odor impacts compared to existing conditions. Chemicals proposed for use in the treatment process would be in enclosed containers and would not be vented to the atmosphere. Therefore, operation ofthe project would not result in a significant odor impact. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 4. Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-28 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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 speciai 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 ofthe analysis is provided below under the Biological Resource Database and Literature Review heading. The biological resources analysis included a thorough review of literature and geospatial data pertaining to biological resources, including the California Natural Diversity Database, California Native Plant Society Inventory, 2012 Master Plans EIR, and Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) mapping data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper, photographs, and aerial imagery. The Phase III project components have been specifically designed to be restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility ROW, access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. ES 8 would cross the San Marcos Creek within the South La Costa Golf Course: however, this segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The entire South La Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf course, including the existing creek alignment. The portion of the pipeline that would cross Encinitas Creek would be attached to an existing bridge and would not require ground-disturbing construction within the creek bed. These areas do not support high quality biological resources and are subject to a number of anthropogenic-related disturbances that degrade the surrounding habitat and limit use by most plant and wildlife species. As such, no direct impacts would be expected to occur to any sensitive biological resources, including special-status species. However, limited portions of several project components occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support sensitive biological resources. Therefore, construction of these components could result in indirect impacts to special-status species, as addressed further below. Special-Status Plant Species. In total, 54 special-status plant species have been reported at locations in the vicinity of the Phase III project sites (Appendix B). None of the 54 special-status plant species have been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the project sites themselves. All of the project sites lack suitable habitat for special-status plant species and are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. No special-status plant species would be expected to occur within the any of the project sites given the high level of disturbance and overall unsuitability of the existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to any special-status plant species as a result ofthe project. Special-Status Wildlife Species. In total, 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported at locations in the vicinity ofthe project sites (Appendix B). None ofthe 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. A'TIf I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 iVIIlU PagelS-29 November 14. 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Most of the areas surrounding the Phase 111 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 ofthe 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 ofthe project sites. However, several ofthe project components contain small segments that occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could support special-status wildlife species. These components include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9. Although no direct impacts to special-status wildlife species would be expected, potential indirect impacts could occur to special-status wildlife species during project construction. The Phase III project components with segments that occur adjacent to undeveloped areas are depicted within Figure 13 and listed below within Table 3, along with a discussion of the potential indirect impact. Table 3 Phase lli Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species Project Component Rationale for Determination Expansion Segment 1 Expansion Segment 1 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of this project component within West Oaks Way and Palomar Oaks Way'will occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction activities would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction would coincide with the breeding season. Expansion Segment 2 Expansion Segment 2 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within disturbed and developed areas. Portions of this project component near Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Encinas Power Station, and near Avenida Encinas and the CWRF facility will occur adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction activities would be restricted to existing disturbed and developed areas, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction would coincide with the breeding season. Expansion Segment 5 Expansion Segment 5 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of this project component that would be installed along Haymar Drive, Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Pontiac Drive, Park Drive, and Palmer Way are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, as shown in Figure 13. All construction activities would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season. Expansion Segment 8 Expansion Segment 8 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of this project component near El Camino Real and the La Costa Resort and Spa are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction activities would be restricted to existing developed roads and the developed South La Costa Golf Course. Trenchless construction would be used to cross San Marcos Creek within the golf course. ,and n No trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season. Expansion Segment 9 Expansion Segment 9 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within disturbed areas. Portions of this project component near Ponto Drive are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species and sensitive natural communities. All construction activities would be restricted to existing disturbed land, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-30 September 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 Source: ESRI, 2010; SanGIS, 2011 0 1 ATKINS Miles A PHASE III INDIRECT BIOLOGY IMPACTS FIGURE 13 CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND r/ 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 Unear Utility Permit, and compliance with local development standards, including the preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and application of appropriate BMPs. Therefore, potential indirect impacts associated with runoff and pollutants into off-site undeveloped areas would be reduced to less than significant levels. Project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9 would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas characterized by trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common and sensitive bird species, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code. Construction of the project may require the removal or trimming of common (non-sensitive) trees and shrubs within ornamental landscaped areas during the general bird nesting season (February IJanuary 15 through September ISAuguGt 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-IA 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-IB through Bio-IF 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 ofthe individual project components. As discussed in Section 4 a), all ofthe project sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. Therefore, sensitive natural communities are considered to be absent from the project sites and no direct impacts would occur. As discussed in Section 4 a), the project components listed within Table 3 would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas. These undeveloped areas could support sensitive natural communities. Construction activities associated with project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 could result in potential runoff and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would be considered significant. As discussed in Section 9, potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with the proposed project features and compliance with applicable regulations listed in Appendix A. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-IB through Bio-IF 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-IB through Bio-IF. AT'|/'|MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptember 19, 2012 •^••^'^ PagelS-32 November 14, 2012 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 ofthe Phase III project sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. No portions ofthe 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-IB through Bio-IF 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-IB through Bio-IF. 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 111 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 ofthe Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant. Projects located within Carlsbad are subject to the requirements ofthe Carlsbad HMP and provisions ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (HPMR) Ordinance. The HPMR requires all development to comply with the Carlsbad HMP as well as the Implementing Agreement, the MHCP, the Natural Communities Conservation Plan and 10(a)(1)(B) permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be permitted to occur until all processing and permitting requirements ofthe HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled. As ATlf IMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 •^••'•^ PagelS-33 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 Pian, 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 ofthe 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 111 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-IA 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.) octivo nosts or any troo pruning or romovol operations during the prime nostinggeneral breeding seasons, that being from March 15 to Moy 30 January 15 to September 15, the Citv shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survev shall survey the trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet ofthe areas planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 davs prior to the start of construction for a particular proiect component.of troo rcmoyol or pruning. If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet ofthe 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 ofthe nests and monitor construction activities. No construction activities shall m tree pruning or removal operations can occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nestvacated or until the end of the prime general breeding season, whichever occurs later. 4ft oddition, prior to any tree romovol or pruning operations proposed outside of tho prime nesting seoson but within tho period of January 15 to September 15, oA qualified biologist shall confirm^ in writing^ that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans. Bio-IB 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 ATlf I M C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 •^••^'^ PagelS-34 November 14. 2012 j60 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 proiect component The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy ofthe 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-IF. Bio-lC Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio- IB that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior to and concurrent with construction. Bio-ID 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-IB that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence. Bio-IE Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IB 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 ofthe project boundaries. Bio-IF Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IB 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 ofthe sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. ATlf IMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 •^••^'^ Page IS-35 November 14, 2012 |6I 5. Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Explanation: ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No impact • • S • • • K • • • S • • • K • 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 ofthe proposed Phase III project. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the record search conducted forthe Master Plans EIR, no historical resources are located within one mile of the proposed Phase III pipeline alignments. Twin D site, or the CWRF expansion. Therefore, it is unlikely that the project would cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource and impacts would be considered less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. Numerous archaeological resources of varying sizes are located within the project area. Archaeological resources are generally equally distributed throughout the project area, but can be described as concentrated around and near existing, large water resources, including Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoon. Based upon the frequency and distribution of these sites, as well as the results of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) records search, the entirety ofthe 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 withw tho proximity ofpotential to be impacted by ES 7, as proposed in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. Refer to Table 4.4-4 of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects with Potential to Result in Significant Impacts to Known Archeological Resources or Would Occur in Previously Undisturbed Areas. The entirety of ES 7 includes the proposed Phase III alignment and an extension of pipeline to serve the proposed Quarry Creek Development The known cultural resource identified in the 2012 Master Plans EIR is in the vicinity ofthe Quarry Creek portion of ES 7, located in currently undeveloped land. This portion of ES 7 is not included as part ofthe proposed project. Potential impacts to cultural resources that would result from the portion of ES 7 in undeveloped land will be addressed in the EIR that is being prepared for the Quarry Creek development. The CWRF expansion and new storage tank would make improvements to existing facilities. The site for the new tank has been previously graded. ES 4A would convert an existing pipeline to recycled water use. No ground disturbing activities would be required for construction of the CWRF expansion, construction, or relocation of a new tank, or implementation of ES 4A. Therefore, these projects would not result in any impacts to known or unknown archeological resources. The remainder of the components of the Phase III project, including ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, and the portion of ES 7 not within the Quarry Creek Development (as shown in Figure 8) would involve installation of new pipelines ATlf IM C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 ' *• •^••^•^ . Page IS-36 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL 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 Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf course, including the existing creek alignment The portion of the pipeline that would cross Encinitas Creek would be attached to an existing bridge and would not require ground-disturbing construction within the creek bed. These project components were included in Table 4.4-2 ofthe Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects Where Impacts are Minimized through Implementation of Project Design Features. Archaeological resources within tho roadway ROWpreviously disturbed areas would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction. Therefore, the proposed Phase III project would not result in additional impacts to archeological resources in these areas. However, due to the high cultural resource sensitivity in the area, unknown cultural resources may still be uncovered during ground disturbing construction activities. Implementation of the procedure listed in Appendix A for the accidental discovery of archeological resources would reduce potential impacts to potentially significant unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant. A paleontological resource analysis of the project area was included as part of the 2012 Master Plans EIR (Burwasser 2010; Kennedy and Tan 2002). According to this data, the project area contains one geologic unit of high paleontological sensitivity: the Santiago formation. Excavation and construction activities associated with the Phase III project components located within the Santiago formation have the potential to disturb or destroy paleontological resources. The Phase Ml project components proposed in areas with high paleontological sensitivity include ES 1, ES 5, ES 7, and ES 18. However, these project components would be located entirely within existing roadways. Potential paleontological resources in these roadway ROWs have already been disturbed and the Phase III project would not result in additional impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources from the Phase III project would be less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant. None of the Phase III project components are proposed within any formal cemeteries. However, previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area have included human burials, which indicate that there is a potential for human remains to be present in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, the NAHC has indicated that human burials are located within and near the project area and beyond the boundaries of formal cemeteries. Sections 15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines assign special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed under PRC Section 5097.98. The disturbance of any human remains is considered a significant impact regardless of archaeological significance or association. Any ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Phase III project including trenching and excavation during construction, would have the potential to unintentionally disturb human remains, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of the required protocol in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, to be followed upon unintentional disturbance of human remains, would minimize potential impacts on human remains. California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance is permitted to occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the NAHC will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to provide technical assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human remains. Compliance with California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 would reduce any potential impacts to human remains from the Phase III project to a level below significance and no further mitigation would be required. ATlf I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 •^••«»^ Page IS-37 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 6. Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result ofthe project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table IS-l-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • • Explanation: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risl< of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than significant. The areas within the vicinity of the project components are not underlain by any known active, potentially active, or inactive faults, and are not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineated by the California Geological Survey (2010). Active faults in the region that could result in rupture include segments of the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and Rose Canyon fault systems. These faults are not located within the project area. Additionally, none ofthe proposed facilities involve human habitation; therefore, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is not applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant. San Diego County has a high seismic potential (County 2009). Although the Phase 111 project does not propose any facilities involving human habitation, seismic groundshaking has the potential to result in significant structural damage or facility failure, which could result in flooding and/or loss of recycled water. Due to ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-38 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 10 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 III project component that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil. CMWD would be required to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address potential site-specific hazards. Therefore, potential impacts related to groundshaking would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv. Landslides? Less than significant. Liquefaction is not known to have occurred historically in San Diego County. However, the potential exists for liquefaction to occur in areas with loose sandy soils combined with a shallow groundwater table, which typically are located in alluvial river valleys/basins and floodplains (County 2009). Additionally, certain lands within the vicinity of the project components are subject to landslides. Generally, landslide potential is considered high for areas that contain slopes of 15 percent or greater. Figure 4.6-2, Geohazards, of the 2012 Master Plans EIR depicts the CIP projects that generally have a high potential for liquefaction and landslides based on regional soil data. ES 4A is located in a potential landslide hazard area; however, this project component would convert an existing potable water pipeline to recycled water use. No new risk of damage or facility failure would result from this project component because no construction or ground disturbance would occur, and no new facilities would be constructed. ES 1, ES 5, and ES 7 are also located in areas of high landslide risk. ES 2 and ES 9 are located in liquefaction hazard areas. ES 8 and ES 18 would potentially be exposed to landslide and liquefaction hazards, depending on the location of the segment. However, as listed in Appendix A, a site specific geotechnical investigation would be completed during the engineering and design of each project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil. CMWD would be required to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address potential site-specific hazards related to liquefaction and landslides. Therefore, potential impacts related to liquefaction and landslides would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant. The CWRF expansion, storage tank construction or relocation, and ES 4A would not result in any earth-disturbing activities that would result in the exposure of soils. However, earth-disturbing activities such as excavation and soil stockpiling associated with the construction ofthe remaining Phase III project components would expose soils that could be subject to erosion during rain and wind events. However, as discussed in below in Section 9a), construction ofthe proposed Phase III project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or General Linear Utility Permit requirements to protect water quality during construction, particularly from eroded sediment. In addition, construction would be subject to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, or Vista, depending on project location. Compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A, including the General Unear Utility Permit, and/or local development standards, including the preparation of a SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, would reduce the potential increase in erosion associated with construction activities to a less than significant level. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant. See Section 6a). A site-specific geotechnical investigation would be completed during the engineering and design of each project in a potential hazard area (ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18) that makes recommendations for any site-specific hazards. Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable soil would be less than significant. iyrif IM C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 * •^••^'^ PagelS-39 November 14. 2012 oS 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 ofthe Phase III project sites are located in an area with high potential for expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The Phase III project proposes new infrastructure and would not involve the use of or need for septic tanks or and other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Implementation of the Phase III project would not affect existing sewer service. No impact would occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the Q Q ^ | | environment? b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions ]~] Q ^ Q of greenhouse gases? Explanation: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than significant. California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines GHGs to include the following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFe). 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 N2O (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 COae 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 111 project Construction of the project would result in temporary emissions of GHG from the operation of construction equipment and from worker and building supply vendor vehicles. Equipment that is associated with construction activity includes dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery, and haul trucks. The 2012 Master Plans EIR determined that the worst-case annual construction scenario, which included the Phase III project would result in annual GHG emissions of 959 MT C02e. The worst-case construction scenario is described in greater detail in Section 2b). Construction ofthe Phase yyTlflMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 * *• •^••^'^ PagelS-40 November 14, 2012 )0« ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY III project would be less than the overall total, and as a result would not generate significant GHG emissions during construction. Operational GHG emissions from the Phase III project would include indirect emissions from electricity usage and direct emissions from mobile sources. The Phase III project would not result in an increase in demand for natural gas, water, or solid waste disposal services; therefore, no increase in GHG emissions would occur from these sources. Pipeline and storage projects, once constructed, would not require the use of electricity, emergency generators, or any other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment. However, the increase in the capacity of the CWRF would result in an increase in electricity demand. Existing electricity use at the CWRF is 1.2 million kWh (City of Carlsbad 2011). The CWRF expansion would double the capacity of the existing CWRF; therefore, it was assumed to result in a doubling of electricity demand. Therefore, the increase in capacity at the CWRF would result in a net increase in demand of 1.2 million kWh, which would result in estimated GHG emissions of 396 MT C02e (California Climate Action Registry 2009). The proposed Phase III project components are underground pipelines, a storage tank, and an improvement to the existing CWRF facility. Following construction, the storage tank and underground pipelines would be passive and would not require regular maintenance. Occasional vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to existing pipelines. No new vehicle trips would be required by the CWRF for maintenance or operation of the expansion. Therefore, the Phase III project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips. In the analysis in the 2012 Master Plans EIR, it was conservatively assumed that a net increase of one maintenance trip per day would be required, for a total increase of 5 miles based on the distance from the City of Carlsbad/CMWD operations buildings on Faraday Avenue to the farthest portion of CIP Project ES 4C. All of the project components are closer to the CMWD building than CIP Project ES 4C; therefore, annual GHG emissions would be less than the 1 MT C02e calculated for buildout of the Master Plans. The total annual GHG emissions from construction ofthe CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Master Plans EIR (including the Phase III project) is 959 MT C02e. Operation of the Phase III 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 III 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 III project would not result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than significant. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established statutory limits on GHG emissions in California. Under AB 32, the CARB is responsible for adopting rules and regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines the state's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit and future emissions reduction targets established by Executive Order S-3-05. The County guidelines were established for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs to meet the state requirements of AB 32. The guidelines are based on regional data, including the incorporated cities and may be used by lead agencies in the region other than the County of San Diego. The guidelines were developed in support of the County's Climate Action Plan that was approved in June 2012, and is compliant with AB 32. GHG emissions that are below the County's regional annual emissions threshold would be considered consistent with AB 32. As discussed in Section 7 a), neither construction-related nor operational GHG emissions would exceed the regional significance threshold established by the County of San Diego. Therefore, the project would not conflict with guidelines established for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs to meet the state requirements of AB 32. ATlf IMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 IXIIHiJ PagelS-41 November 14. 2012 (6n ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No Impact • • 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Explanation: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant. Numerous federal and state regulations require strict adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, disposal and accidental release of hazardous materials. Regulations associated with transporting, using or disposing of hazardous materials include the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act which provides the 'cradle to grave' regulation of hazardous wastes; Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act which requires any infrastructure at the state and local levels to plan for chemical emergencies; the International Fire Code, which regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways; California Health and Safety Code, which provides threshold quantities for regulated hazardous substances and the establishment of Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans; California Code or Regulations Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste; California Code or Regulations Title 27, which regulates the treatment storage and disposal of hazardous solid wastes; SB 1889, which defines regulated substances as chemicals that pose a threat to public health and safety or • • • ATKINS CMWD Phase HI Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-42 Soptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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 III project would have the potential to generate small amounts of hazardous materials and wastes. Petroleum products such as fuels and oils would be the predominant materials used during construction due to operation of motorized construction equipment and vehicles. The main hazardous wastes produced by construction activity would be waste oil and oil-saturated materials from construction equipment. Hazardous materials and waste would be managed and used in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, described above. There would be no routine transport storage, use, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Minimal amounts of hazardous materials may be transported to and from a site during construction, but the transport of such materials would be temporary and subject to applicable regulations, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous wastes generated from construction activities would be less than significant. Following construction, the proposed pipelines and storage tank would be passive and would not require the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the CWRF currently uses chemicals and other hazardous materials in its treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additional use of these materials, including chlorine. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) has already been prepared forthe 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 ofthe site operator, a map identifying the location ofthe hazardous materials, emergency response procedures for major and minor emergencies, an emergency response plan, and a description of required employee training. Implementation of the CWRF expansion would result in a slight increase in the use of hazardous materials already used at the CWRF due to an increase in the capacity of the treatment facility. Hazards related to these materials could occur during storage, transportation, use, disposal, or accidental release. The proposed new CWRF treatment facilities would be required to be incorporated into the existing CWRF HMBP. The procedures in the plan comply with U.S. Department of Transportation (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) and CHP regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials along state highways, and are subject to approval by the DEH. Disposal of CWRF equipment such as filters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Therefore, routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials at the CWRF would be managed and used as required by all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, such as Resources Conservation and Recovery Act Title 22, the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and Hazardous Material Business Plans. Impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials generated from operational activities would be less than significant b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport and use of fuels, oil, and other fluids associated with construction equipment. Leaks or spills may occur during construction, potentially releasing hydrocarbons to the environment however, compliance with applicable California Department of Toxic Substances Control regulations for the handling of hazardous materials and spill cleanup procedures would prevent potentially significant impacts. Operation of the pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment Operation of the CWRF expansion would be subject to the HMBP prepared for the CWRF which has been approved by the DEH. This plan establishes procedures to minimize the potential for upsets or accidents to occur in accordance with federal. State, and local regulations, and establishes emergency procedures should an accident occur. Therefore, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. /^FlflMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND • Soptombor 19, 2012 • »• iXiiHiJ PagelS-43 November 14, 2012 o9 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 ofthe storage tank and pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the CWRF. No impact would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than significant with mitigation. A record search of the areas in the vicinity of the Phase III project components was conducted by Atkins in February 2012 of federal, state, and local databases of sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials, or sites for which a hazardous materials release or incident has occurred. The records search included the GeoTracker database, the EnviroStor database, and the Site Assessment and Mitigation Program. The GeoTracker database is a geographic information system that provides online access to environmental data including underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies. The EnviroStor database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund Sites (National Priorities List); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. The Site Assessment and Mitigation Program lists sites in San Diego County that require permitting for handling hazardous materials. The GeoTracker Database identified approximately 50 recorded sites along the Phase III project alignments and one near the CWRF. Sites were identified along every Phase III alignment except ES 7. Site records included leaking underground storage tanks, land disposal sites, and other cleanup sites. Ten out ofthe 50 recorded sites are open cases; the remainder ofthe 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 111 project sites to have been previously contaminated by hazardous substances as a result of former uses ofthe sites surrounding the alignment or leaks from unidentified underground storage tanks. Typical pathways of exposure to pollutants from existing contamination include inhalation of volatiles and fugitive particulates, and dermal absorption. Potential exposure to contaminants could occur to construction workers during grading, trenching, excavation and site development activities that would expose potentially contaminated soil. ES 4A, construction or relocation of the storage tank, and the CWRF expansion do not require any ground-disturbing construction activities that would potentially expose workers to contaminated soil. ES 7 is proposed in a residential neighborhood, which typically does not include permitted hazardous materials establishments, and no hazardous materials sites were identified along this alignment. Therefore, construction of ES 4A, ES 7, storage tank, and the CWRF expansion would not result in a significant impact related to listed hazardous materials sites during construction. However, construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potential to encounter contaminated soil during construction activities and expose construction workers to a significant hazard. Impacts during construction would be potentially significant. However, implementation of mitigation measures Haz-1 and Haz-2 would reduce potential hazards related to listed hazardous materials sites to a less than significant level. None of the Phase III project components propose a facility for human habitation that would potentially result in long-term exposure to risks from an existing hazardous materials site. The CWRF expansion makes interior improvements to an existing building at the CWRF. Therefore, workers at the CWRF would not be exposed to any additional risk from hazardous sites as a result of the project. Additionally, the site located adjacent to the CWRF at the EWPCF (Case No. T0607300568) is closed and no future action required. Therefore, potential impacts during operation would be less than significant. ATI^IMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptember 19, 2012 •^••^'^ PagelS-44 November 14, 2012 110 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. ES 1 would be located within the Palomar-McClellan Airport Influence Area and Flight Activity Zone. The proposed pipeline would be located underground and does not involve any construction or long-term operational features that would result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No structures for human occupancy are proposed in the Flight Activity Zone. Activities at Palomar-McClellan Airport would be unaffected by the proposed project. Additionally, none ofthe proposed Phase 111 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 111 project No impact would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant. Interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan would result in an adverse physical effect to people or the environment by potentially increasing the loss of life and property in the event of a disaster. The CWRF expansion, construction or relocation of the storage tank, and ES 4A would make improvements to existing facilities and would not result in any impact to emergency response or evacuation plans during construction or operation. Following construction, the proposed pipelines in ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would be located underground. No impact to emergency response or evacuation plans would occur. However, construction activities associated with these pipelines, particularly excavation and trenching activities associated with pipeline extensions or other improvements that are within roadway ROW, may result in temporary, construction-related lane and road closures or detours. Temporary roadway closures could potentially interfere with emergency plans and procedures if appropriate authorities are not properly notified, or multiple projects are constructed during the same time and multiple roadways used for emergency routes are concurrently blocked. However, the CMWD has committed to preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan, as described in the list of construction measures in Appendix A. With implementation of a traffic control plan, the Phase III project would not result in a potentially significant impact associated with impairment or interference with emergency response or evacuation plans. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ioss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than significant. Construction activities may result in a potential fire risk due to the presence of fuel-burning construction equipment. The Phase III project components are located entirely within existing facilities or existing roadway ROW in developed areas. However, some construction would occur adjacent to undeveloped areas. The CMWD has committed to construction measures, listed in Appendix A to reduce fire risk during construction. Preparation of a brush management plan and dissemination of fire safety information to construction crews would ensure that construction impacts would not be significant. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites (Section Sd) 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. ATI^I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptomber 19, 2012 IXI 111PagelS-45 November 14, 2012 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 Planningto address physical hazards, site security, management of soil and water, and monitoring equipment. A description of engineering controls and measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site workers, public and the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the construction area shall be provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The engineering controls and measures to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1) An exclusion zone and support zone shall be established prior to start and during excavation activities. No unauthorized personnel shall be allowed in these zones. Personnel authorized to work in these zones shall have the required training and qualifications including the California Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) HAZWOPER training. 2) Written notifications shall be posted on the perimeter fencing in advance of start of excavation to notify the general public and hotel staff/operators of the nature and duration of work activities. The postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers. 3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones. 4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks or respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek protective clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or ear muffs. 5) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting the exclusion zone. 6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or 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. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-46 September 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No Impact • • • • • • m Explanation: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant. The Phase 111 project would have the potential to contribute to a violation of water quality standards or the degradation of surface water quality during construction. Construction of the Phase III project could result in polluted runoff through activities such as excavation, stockpiling of soils and materials, and concrete pouring. This runoff would have short-term adverse impacts on surface water quality. Typically, construction activities involve various types of equipment such as dozers, scrapers, graders, loaders, compactors, dump trucks, water trucks, and concrete mixers. Additionally, soils are typically stockpiled outdoors, in addition to other materials that would be used later during construction. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-47 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 ofthe 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 ofthe associated earth-moving activities and areas of exposed soil. Sediment that is washed off site can result in turbidity in surface waters, which can impact aquatic species. In addition, when sediment is deposited into receiving water it can smother organisms, alter the substrate and habitat and alter the drainage course. Hydrocarbons such as fuels, asphalt materials, oils, and hazardous materials such as paints and concrete slurries discharged from construction sites could also impact aquatic plants and animals downstream. Debris and trash could be washed into existing storm drainage channels to downstream surface waters and could impact wildlife as well as aesthetic value. The potential increase in pollutants associated with construction activities could result in a violation in water quality standards or a substantial degradation of water quality. However, construction of the proposed Phase III project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or General Linear Utility Permit (for expansion segments that would disturb less than one acre) requirements, in addition to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad or Oceanside, depending on project location. The City of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards Manual and the Oceanside Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance outline specific requirements to ensure compliance with all applicable storm water ordinances. Every construction activity within Carlsbad that has the potential to negatively affect water quality must prepare a construction SWPPP. A SWPPP provides for temporary measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction as required by the most recent statewide permit regulating construction activities. The SWPPP requirements in the Storm Water Standards Manual ensure compliance with the Carlsbad Storm Water Ordinance. Additionally, construction activities must comply with all construction BMPs required pursuant to Title 15 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Grading and Drainage, including minimizing and stabilizing disturbed areas, protecting slopes and channels, controlling the site perimeter, and controlling internal erosion. If dewatering is required for any Phase III project dewatering and discharge activities would be subject to water quality guidelines outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System administered by the San Diego RWQCB. Additionally, the CMWD has committed to the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential water quality impacts, including a spill contingency plan and requirements for groundwater disposal, if encountered. Compliance with the proposed project features and the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A would reduce the potential increase in pollutants associated with construction activities to a less than significant level. Following construction, the Phase III project would not result in any new impervious surfaces and does not include any components that would generate potential water quality pollutants. Therefore, the Phase 111 project would not increase runoff and would not result in a violation of waste discharge requirements from operation. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less than significant. None of the Phase III project components would affect groundwater recharge because they would not involve the extraction or use of groundwater supplies. Further, each project component would comply ATI^I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 IXI in 1^ PagelS-48 November 14, 2012 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 ofthe proposed Phase III project would not use groundwater and would not directly affect groundwater levels. Dewatering, a method which pumps groundwater into either a surface water body or directly into a stormwater drainage system, may be required to prepare sites for placement of proposed pipelines and other underground facilities; however, the potential impact to groundwater would be temporary and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Further, the Phase 111 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 111 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 111 project such as grading, trenching, or excavation, have the potential to result in localized temporary or permanent alteration of drainage patterns. This can lead to deposition of pollutants and sediment to the watershed outlets and an increase in polluted runoff to surface receiving bodies. However, as discussed in Section 9a), project design features and existing state and local regulations are in place to ensure that impacts to water quality from construction activities would not occur, including increases in sediment runoff. These regulations require the implementation of BMPs during construction that minimize disturbance, protect slopes and reduce erosion. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce the potential increase in polluted runoff, erosion and siltation associated with construction to a less than significant level. Upon completion of construction, no increase in impervious surfaces would occur as a result of the Phase III project Trenched areas would be restored to their previous condition and no alteration of the drainage pattern would occur. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the project would not substantially alter drainage patterns and would not increase erosion and siltation. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less than significant. Land-disturbing construction activities, such as grading and excavation, could result in the localized alteration of drainage patterns. Temporary ponding and/or flooding could result from temporary alterations of the drainage system that reduce its capacity to carry runoff. However, construction of the Phase 111 project would be required to comply with existing regulations that reduce the likelihood of alterations in drainage to result in flooding impacts, such as those listed above in Section 9a). Through compliance with existing local and state regulations, including implementation of construction BMPs, construction activities associated with the Phase III project would not increase the rate and amount of surface runoff to streams and rivers in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than significant. Drainage facilities including storm drains, culverts, inlets, channels, curbs, roads, or other such structures are designed to prevent flooding by collecting storm water runoff and directing flows to either the natural drainage course and/or away from development If drainage facilities are not adequately designed, built or properly maintained, the capacity of the existing facilities can be exceeded resulting in flooding and increased sources of polluted runoff. As discussed in Section 9d), the Phase III project would have the potential to result in alterations of drainage patterns during construction. This alteration in drainage patterns could exceed the capacity of existing or planned on-site and off-site storm water drainage systems. Storm water discharges are generated by precipitation and runoff from land, structures, and other surfaces. Substantial increased runoff volumes would have the potential to overload existing drainage facilities and increase flows and velocity which could result in flooding, increased erosion, and impacts to downstream receiving waters ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-49 Soptomber 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY and habitat integrity. However, construction ofthe Phase 111 project would be required to comply with state and local stormwater regulations, including construction BMPs, which reduce the likelihood of runoff exceeding the capacity of an existing storm water drainage system. Through compliance with the existing regulations, the Phase III project would not increase runoff in volumes that would exceed pre-project site conditions and would not exceed the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than significant. As discussed in Section 9 a), compliance with applicable state and local regulations would prevent potentially significant impacts to water quality. Operation of the proposed pipelines would be entirely underground and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The storage tank would be a passive facility on an existing storage tank site and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The CWRF expansion - makes improvements to an existing facility and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. Therefore, the proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No impact. The Phase III project does not include the provision of any housing; therefore, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FIRM or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. The Phase III project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities. Approximately 20 feet of the ES 8 pipeline alignment would be exposed over Encinitas Creek within the South La Costa Golf Course; however, the 6 inch pipeline would be attached to the side of an existing bridge and would not result in any additional interference with 100-year flows. Therefore, the project would not place structures which would impede or redirect flow within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No impact. The dam inundation area potentially affecting the Phase III project surrounds the Maerkle Dam, in close proximity to ES 8. However, ES 8 proposed an underground pipeline that would not be affected by dam inundation. None ofthe Phase III project components involve housing or structures for human occupancy. Therefore, a dam inundation event would not result in injury or death related to proposed Phase III project. No impact would occur. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No impact. A seiche is a standing wave in a completely or partially enclosed body of water. Although Maerkle Reservoir is located near ES 8, this water body is not large enough to be subject to seiches. Some overtopping ofthe reservoirs may occur; however, ES 8 proposesbably an underground pipeline. The Phase III project does not propose any structures that would be at risk from seiches. A tsunami is a very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. Tsunamis can cause flooding to coastlines and inland areas less than 50 feet above sea level and within one mile of the shoreline. The CWRF expansion, ES 2, and ES 9 would be located within one mile ofthe coastline. However, these project components propose improvements to an existing facility and underground pipelines. The Phase III project would not result in new facilities at risk for tsunami hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to a significant risk from a tsunami. Debris flows, also known as mudflows, are shallow water-saturated landslides that travel rapidly down slopes carrying rocks, brush, and other debris. The project area contains many areas with steep slopes, or mountainous areas, that would potentially be subject to mudflows in the event of large amounts or precipitation. However, the ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-50 Soptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 in ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Phase III project does not propose housing or buildings for human occupancy; therefore, life loss would not occur in the event of a mudflow. No new structures are proposed that would have the potential to be at risk of structure loss. Therefore, no impact related to mudflows would occur. Potentially 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? Q |^ ^ \^ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, I II IXI I local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? • • S • Explanation: a) Physically divide an established community? Less than significant. The Phase III project proposes underground facilities and improvements on CMWD property containing existing facilities. The Phase 111 project would not result in any new physical barriers following construction. As discussed in Section Sg), the CMWD would implement traffic control plans during construction so that roadways affected by construction would continue to be usable by vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established neighborhood during construction or operation. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant. Construction of the Phase 111 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 Sg), a traffic control plan would be implemented during construction of any Phase III project that would interfere with traffic flow. Construction activities would also have the potential to generate noise levels that are incompatible with surrounding land uses. As discussed in Section 12d), construction activities would comply with all restrictions on construction hours established in the Carlsbad and Oceanside noise ordinances so that construction would not disturb sleep. Construction activities would also include best management practices to minimize noise to daytime noise sensitive land uses. Therefore, construction of the proposed Phase III project would not result in any significant land use conflicts or incompatibilities. The Phase III project proposes below-ground pipelines and upgrades to and existing tank site and the existing CWRF and would not have local land use effects after installation. The CWRF expansion would not result in any change in land use and would not result in any land use conflicts or incompatibilities. As discussed in Section 13, the Phase HI 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 HI project would not induce any unplanned growth. The 2012 RWMP is intended to implement the recycled water infrastructure necessary to meet the land use goals established in the Carlsbad General Plan. The Phase III project would also potentially require discretionary permits from the jurisdiction in which the project is located, whether it be Carlsbad or Oceanside. Future projects would be required to comply with all applicable land use regulations in order to obtain project approval and would be further evaluated at the time of project design and review. Anri^lMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 #11 IXIIlU Page IS-51 November 14. 2012 in ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Therefore, the Phase III project would not conflict with the Carlsbad General Plans or other land use regulations and ordinances. The Coastal Zone of Carlsbad is located within areas that are west of El Camino Real. The CWRF expansion, ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 are located in this area. These project components would have the potential to affect the Coastal Zone, and some construction activities would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Since Carlsbad has an approved Local Coastal Program as of 1996, the City acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects located within its coastal zone, with a few exceptions. There are areas of "deferred certification" where the state retains permitting authority. For example, Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies outside of Carlsbad's permitting authority, and the project in its vicinity (ES 2) would require a CDP from the California Coastal Commission. All projects in the Carlsbad coastal zone would require review for consistency with the Local Coastal Program and California Coast Act prior to issuance of a CDP. The future required review and issuance of CDPs would ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the Local Coastal Program; individual components would require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the California Coast Act The Phase III project would not conflict vvith 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 111 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 | | | | | IX the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Q |^ Q ^ plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Explanation: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. No mineral resources are actively being extracted and utilized as exploitable natural resources within Carlsbad. The Phase III project component areas are designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3, which indicated that mineral resources are potentially present. Additional geotechnical investigations would be required to determine whether these areas contain resources of value, or are located in areas that do not contain mineral resources (Dudek 2003, City of Vista 2011, and City of Oceanside 2002). Therefore, the Phase 111 project would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur. yypi^ll^^ CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 Page IS-52 November 14, 2012 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 III project would be constructed within roadway ROW or at existing facilities. Additionally, the proposed Phase III project consists of public utilities infrastructure that would not be considered incompatible land uses that would preclude areas surrounding the project components sites from being used for mineral extraction. No impact would occur. Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less Than Significant With Significant Mitigation Impact 12. Noise Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • • • • • • • • • • • • No Impact • • • • m • • m Explanation: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than significant. Construction of the project would potentially result in temporary increases in noise levels from the operation of construction equipment. Construction activities associated with the Phase III project would involve the use of heavy equipment during trenching and extraction, and installation of some equipment such as the CWRF expansion equipment Equipment that would be associated with construction of the proposed Phase III project includes dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, cranes, and delivery trucks. The magnitude ofthe impact would depend on the type of construction activity, type of construction equipment duration of the construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening topography. Sound levels of typical construction equipment range from 60 dBA to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source (FHWA 2008). The CMWD has committed to the measures list in Appendix A during construction of Phase III project to minimize noise effects to surrounding neighborhoods, including distancing noise sources from residences, compliance with applicable noise ordinances, and providing notice of construction to residents and property owners. The City of Carlsbad prohibits construction after sunset on any day, and before 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and before 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day on Sunday or holidays. In Oceanside, operation ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-53 Soptomber 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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. Table 4 City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards Zone Applicable Limit (decibels)'^' Time Period Residential Estate, Single-Family Residential, Medium Density Residential, Agricultural, Open Space 50 45 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. High Density, Residential Tourist 55 50 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Commercial 65 60 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Industrial 70 65 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. Downtown 65 55 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. (1) One-hour average sound level. Source: City of Oceanside Municipal Code, Section 38.12 A portion of ES 5 is located in Oceanside. ES 5 would install a new pipeline to increase the availability of recycled water. The Oceanside City Management would determine if this project would further public interest and would be exempted from the hourly noise level limits. Regardless, the project design features above would minimize construction noise. Additionally, the proposed Phase III project would not be constructed all at once and not all equipment would be operating at the same time. Pipeline projects would be constructed in a linear fashion and would only result in construction noise at a particular receptor for a short time. Therefore, implementation of the Phase III project would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the Carlsbad or Oceanside noise ordinances during construction. Following construction, the potential transportation noise sources for the Phase III project would be primarily associated with vehicular trips by employees. However, as addressed in Section 2, operation of the Phase III project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The Phase III project would make improvements to the existing CWRF or are passive pipeline and storage projects that would not increase the number of maintenance trips typically required. Additionally, maintenance trips would be to facilities throughout the project areas and would not be concentrated on a specific roadway. Due to the minimal number and geographic distribution of vehicular trips associated with the maintenance ofthe Phase HI 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 111 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 ofthe 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 ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-54 Septembor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY repair activities on any Phase 111 project would have the potential to generate some additional noise. However, these activities are sporadic in nature and do not occur at the same location for long periods of time. Implementation of the Phase III project would not result in a significant impact related to substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant. Vibration sources associated with implementation of the Phase III would be generated primarily from project construction. Once installed, the Phase III project facilities include passive pipelines and treatment facilities that do not generate substantial levels of vibration. Construction-related vibration would have the potential to impact nearby structures and vibration-sensitive equipment and operations. The level of vibration generated from other construction activities would depend on the type of soils and the energy-generating capability ofthe construction equipment. According to Caltrans typical construction activities and equipment, such as dozers, earthmovers, and trucks have not exceeded 0.10 in/sec peak particle velocity at 10 feet. Vibration criteria for sensitive equipment and operations must be determined based on manufacturer specifications and recommendations by the equipment user. As a guide, major construction activity within 200 feet may be potentially disruptive to sensitive operations (Caltrans 2002). No pile driving or blasting, which would potentially generate higher levels of vibration, would be required for implementation of the Phase III project. Phase III project components located near existing commercial or industrial development that would require heavy equipment operation that may be potentially disruptive to vibration- sensitive operations include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18. As listed in Appendix A, the CMWD has committed to providing advance notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. The announcement will state specifically where and when construction will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice will be made, either in person or by mail. Therefore, vibration-sensitive land uses within the vibration screening distance for major construction activity would receive adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration. Although vibration may be an annoyance to residents, residential development does not include vibration sensitive equipment and is not considered a day-time vibration-sensitive land use. As discussed under Section 4.11.3.2 (Issue 2), construction activities would take place during the day in accordance with the affected cities' noise ordinances. Therefore, construction of the Phase HI 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 111 project would not generate substantial new operational noise. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Impacts would be less than significant d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant. As discussed in Section 12a), construction of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in noise levels from the operation of construction equipment however, noise levels would comply with applicable noise ordinances and the CMWD would implement BMPs to minimize noise. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ATI^I M C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 ' *• IVIIIU PagelS-55 November 14, 2012 /7 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 HI 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 ofthe project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip. No impact would occur. Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 13. Population and Housing Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? • • • S b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing Q |^ X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Explanation: • • • K a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No impact. Implementation of the Phase III project would not directly induce population growth because the project does not propose any new homes or business that would directly attract new growth. Additionally, implementation ofthe Phase III project would not indirectly induce population growth because the plans have been developed to accommodate projected population growth associated demand for recycled water projects in the 2012 RWMP, which was prepared based on the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Growth Database. Therefore, the projected population growth ofthe region that would be accommodated by the proposed Phase Ml was based upon existing and planned land use data for the project area. The Phase HI 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. A^ri^l MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptember 19, 2012 * IXIIHIJ PagelS-56 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 14. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any ofthe public services: a) Fire Protection? • • • X b) Police Protection? • • • X c) Schools? • • • X d) Parks? • • • X e) Other public facilities? • • • X Explanation: a) Fire Protection? No impact. The Phase III project indudes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for fire services. As such, the project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Police Protection? No impact. The Phase III project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for police services. As such, the project would not require the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Schools? No impact. The Phase III project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for schools. As such, the project would not require the provision of new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Parks? No impact. The Phase III project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for parks. As such, the project would not require the provision of new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Other Public Facilities? No impact. The Phase III project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any other land uses that would result in an increased demand for other public services. As such, implementation of the Phase HI 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. Anrif I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 IXIIHiJ PagelS-57 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact 15. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation: • • • • • • a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact. The Phase III project includes improvements to the existing facilities, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The Phase III project does not contain any residential uses or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore, implementation of the Phase III project would not impact the use of parks or other recreational facilities. There would be no impact to recreational facilities, and no further analysis is required. No impact would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The project includes improvements to the existing facilities and installation of new pipelines. The project does not contain any residential uses or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore, the project would not require the construction or expansion of new recreational facilities. There would be no impact to recreational facilities, and no further analysis is required. No impact would occur. 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 ofthe circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact • • • • • • • No Impact • M • ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-58 September 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 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 Q Q Q ^ uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [ [ | | X I I f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, Q Q ^ Q 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 ofthe circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would generate construction-related trips from trucks hauling soil and/or debris from the construction sites; trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the construction sites; and construction workers driving to/from the construction sites. These localized increases in construction traffic would be temporary. Construction of the Phase III project would not occur all at once, and would take place throughout the study area so that even simultaneous construction projects would not concentrate traffic on the same roadways. Construction traffic would only affect a limited area immediately surrounding the active construction area for a short time during construction of a particular Phase III project. Construction projects would not be expected to generate an increase in vehicular trips that would degrade the level of service on surrounding roadways to below an acceptable level. The Phase 111 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 ofthe traffic control plan would reduce potential impacts during construction to a less than significant level. Permanent traffic associated with operation of the Phase III project would occur primarily from vehicular trips by employees. However, operation of the project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The proposed project components are underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities. Following construction, the underground pipelines would be passive and would not require regular maintenance. Occasional vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to existing pipelines. The CWRF and Twin D tank site currently require vehicle trips for maintenance. The CWRF expansion and new or relocated storage tank would not result in new maintenance vehicle trips. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be distributed on roadways throughout project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Implementation of the proposed Phase III project would not result in long-term impacts to traffic. The project would not degrade the traffic level of service in the study area. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than significant. Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways that serve the City of Carlsbad, and the portion ofthe City of Oceanside in the project area, include Interstate 5, State Route 78, El Camino Real, Palomar Anri^lMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptomber 19, 2012 ' IXII^J PagelS-59 November 14. 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road (SANDAG 2008). Construction of the proposed project would not require construction in any of these CMP roadway ROW, with the exception of El Camino Real. As discussed in Section 16a), the CMWD would implement a traffic control plan to reduce potential impacts to traffic flow during construction to a less than significant level. In addition, operation ofthe Phase III project would generate a negligible increase in vehicles trips in the area. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be distributed on roadways throughout the project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the SANDAG CMP. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. Implementation of the Phase III project would not involve the construction of facilities that would require changes in air traffic patterns from increased traffic levels, location or design. No impact would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No impact. The Phase III project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to CMWD properties that are developed with existing facilities. The improvements to existing facilities would not be located adjacent to public, roadways. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. No impact would occur. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than significant. Emergency access could be temporarily affected by construction in roadway ROW, which would restrict access the area surrounding the construction sites, but roadways would not be permanently affected by implementation ofthe Phase 111 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 ofthe proposed Phase III project components. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less than significant. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and public transit could be temporarily affected by construction within roadway ROW, but facilities would not be permanently affected by implementation of the Phase III project Therefore, the Phase III project would not conflict with policies or programs regarding public transit bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise permanently decrease the access, performance, or safety of such facilities. As discussed in Section 16a), lane and sidewalk enclosures during construction would have the potential to decrease the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities. However, implementation of the traffic control plan would ensure that significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycled facilities would not occur during construction of the proposed Phase III project. Construction of ES 2 in the railroad ROW would be installed using the trenchless jack-and-bore construction method and would not interfere with railroad operation. Therefore, impacts to alternative transportation would be less than significant. ATlf j M C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 PagelS-60 November 14,2012 \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 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m • • • • Explanation: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact. Construction ofthe 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 111 project would not require potable water or generate wastewater. In addition, there is no new development associated with the proposed project which would increase potable water demand or wastewater generation. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (other than those associated with the proposed Phase III project to treat and convey recycled water). No impact would occur. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No impact. The proposed project is an expansion of the CWRF, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and underground recycled water pipelines; operation of the pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not discharge into the storm water drainage system or generate surface runoff. In addition, no new impervious surfaces ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-61 Soptomber 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 entitiements 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 ofthe CWRF expansion and recycled water pipelines would not require use of water. In fact operation ofthe Phase III project would reduce existing and future potable water demand by expanding the availability of recycled water. Impacts to water supplies would be less than significant e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less than significant. Wastewater discharged to the Carlsbad sanitary sewer system is conveyed to the EWPCF. The EWPCF currently treats approximately 24 million gallons per day of wastewater, and has a treatment capacity of 40.51 million gallons per day (Encina Wastewater Authority 2010, 2012). Construction ofthe 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 ofthe Phase III project. Therefore, the EWPCF has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than significant. Construction-related non-recyclable solid waste generation would be temporary and limited to small amounts relative to the landfill's available capacity and permitted daily throughput therefore, there would be sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Moreover, the long-term operations of proposed pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not generate solid waste that would impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. Operation of the pipelines and storage tank would not generate solid waste. The only waste that would be generated by the CWRF would be disposal of filters and other equipment at the end of its lifespan. Products would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations and would not impact local landfill capacity. Impacts to landfills would be less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less than significant. As discussed in Section Sa), all demolition debris and construction waste associated with construction ofthe Phase III project would be properly handled and disposed of, in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations related to solid and hazardous waste. Disposal of CWRF equipment at the end of its lifespan would also be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. i^rtCl Kl C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 ' •^••^•^ PagelS-62 November 14, 2012 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 plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation: • • • • • • • • • a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Sections 4 a), 4 b), and 4 c) above with regard to biological resources. The proposed project would not result in any direct impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or wetlands. However, construction activities associated with project components ES 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 could result in potential runoff that could affect wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. Mitigation measures Bio-IA through Bio-IF 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 111 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: ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-63 Soptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL 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 ofthe potential cumulative impacts ofthe Phase III project in combination with the remaining RWMP CIP Projects, the 2012 Sewer and Water Master Plan Projects, and cumulative development in the CMWD services area. This analysis is incorporated by reference, and is summarized below as it pertains to the Phase III project. The following environmental topics are not discussed any further in this section because the proposed project would have no direct impact related to these issues: Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. Aesthetics. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to aesthetics is limited to the project site and its immediate surroundings. The proposed project is located in existing roadway ROW and existing facilities in developed areas. However, some areas of open space existing along proposed alignments. Consistent with the Master Plans EIR, as Carlsbad continues to develop, the appearance ofthe project area will continue to change from undeveloped to a more built-out, urbanized landscape. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to aesthetics is significant. However, following construction, the Phase III project would be located underground or within existing CMWD sites containing similar infrastructure. A substantial permanent visual impact would not occur as a result of the Phase III project. The Phase III project would not result in cumulatively considerable contribution to a potentially significant cumulative aesthetic impact. Air Qualitv. 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 ofthe Carlsbad HMP, project-level and cumulative impacts for development projects within the city have been mitigated to levels of less than significant. One ofthe 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 ofthe HPMR Ordinance and Carlsbad HMP protecting sensitive biological resources within the city. Through consistency with the Carlsbad HMP and implementation of mitigation measures Bio-IA through Bio-IF, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution toward impacts on special status species within the regional cumulative impact area. yyriflMC CMWD Phase m Recycled water projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 ' •^"^•^ PagelS-64 November 14, 2012 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 111 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 ofthe project would have a less than significant impact on historical resources, known archeological resources, or paleontological resources. The CMWD has committed to a protocol for the accidental discovery of unknown archeological resources that if resources are discovered, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, construction associated with the Phase III project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of archaeological or historical resources within the regional cumulative impact area. Geology and Soils. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils is generally site- specific rather than cumulative in nature because each site has unique geologic consideration that would be subject to uniform site development and construction standards. The structural design for all of the cumulative projects, as well as their associated construction activities, would be required to comply with all applicable public health, safety, and building design codes and regulations to reduce seismic and geologic hazards to an acceptable level. Therefore, because compliance with all applicable codes and regulations is required for all cumulative projects, a significant cumulative impact associated with geology and soils would not occur, and an analysis ofthe 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 lli project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant global climate change impact related to GHG emissions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials is site-specific, and therefore limited to the project site and its immediate surroundings. Due to historical releases in the area, contaminated soils and groundwater are likely to be encountered during construction of the proposed project and nearby cumulative projects, which would potentially expose the public and the environment to hazardous materials. This represents a potentially significant cumulative impact; however, implementation of mitigation measure Haz-1 and Haz-2 would mitigate the Phase III project's direct and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with hazardous materials. Hydroloay and Water Qualitv. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality is defined as the project site and the portions ofthe Carlsbad watershed directly downstream from the Phase III project locations. Water Quality. Even with the promulgation of storm water regulations, land disturbance and development activities throughout the Carlsbad watershed continue to contribute to the overall water quality problems observed in runoff flows that discharge into watercourses, lagoons, and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Water bodies in the Carlsbad Watershed have been placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact pertaining to water quality is significant. As discussed above in Section 9, the Phase III project would comply with the General Linear Utility Permit and all other applicable storm water requirements, which would ensure that the proposed project would not contribute to the further degradation of water quality. Following construction, the Phase HI 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 HI ATlf IMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 ' *• •^••'•^ PagelS-65 November 14. 2012 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 III project would not result in permanent impacts to existing drainage patterns and would comply with all applicable storm water requirements during construction, which would reduce impacts related to drainage alteration, flooding, and exceedance of capacity of storm water drainage facilities to a level below significance. The Phase III would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulatively significant regional alteration of drainage patterns. Land Use and Planning. Impacts related to consistency with land use plans and policies, and physical division of an established community, are project-specific and not cumulative in nature. It is anticipated that development of future cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Phase III project would undergo CEQA review which would require a consistency analysis with applicable plans and polices. As required by CEQA, cumulative projects would be consistent with the existing adopted plans, or require mitigation measures or design review to ensure consistency As discussed in Section 10) above, implementation of the Phase 111 Project would not result in new land uses that would be incompatible with surrounding land uses and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, the Phase III project, in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact associated with land use and planning. Noise. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the source increases. The area of cumulative impact would be only those projects within the immediate vicinity of the Phase III project Construction of cumulative development projects is not likely to result a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to the localized nature of noise impacts, and construction projects would not occur simultaneously or at the same location. In addition, construction noise for cumulative projects would be subject to the noise standards within the appropriate jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 10), the Phase III project would comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations that limit construction hours, and construction of the Phase 111 project would implement best management practices to minimize construction noise. The Phase III project in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in cumulatively significant increases in temporary noise levels. Potential operational noise impacts from cumulative projects would be required to comply with the noise standards for the jurisdiction that they are located in. As discussed in Section 10a), maintenance for the Phase III project may require occasional vehicle trips for maintenance. Due to the minimal number and the geographic distribution of vehicular trips associated with the maintenance ofthe 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 111, 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 ofthe Phase 111 project would result in a negligible amount of new traffic and would not result in a permanent impact to the regional transportation network. ATlflMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 IVIIHiJ PagelS-66 November 14, 2012 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 wilt 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-IA through Bio-IF, 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 forthe 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 ofthe 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 forthe Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase II Project in December 1999, which included construction ofthe existing CWRF. Each of these prior certified environmental documents are herein incorporated by reference. All referenced documents are available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. All of the checklist items were addressed above for the Phase III project based on the analysis in the 2012 Master Plans EIR. Where appropriate, the EIR analysis was updated to reflect project-specific conditions. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Mitigation measures Bio-IA through Bio-IF are based on mitigation measures Bio-IA through Bio-IF from the 2012 Master Plans EIR. These measures were slightly modified to be project-specific. ATlflMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 IXIIHiJ Page IS-67 November 14. 2012 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 SANDAG for the Cities ofCarlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. March. Available at http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.detail Atkins. 2012a. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master Plans Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2012021006. Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. Atkins. 2012b. California Historical Resources Information System Client In-House Records Search, South Coastal Information Center. January 30. Burwasser, G. 2010, Paleontological Resources Evaluation of Vallecitos Water District San Diego County, California, October 28. California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Report Protocol, Version 3.1. January. California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2010. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program - San Diego County Important Farmland 2008. October. California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2009. Williamson Act Program - San Diego County Williamson Act Lands 2008. April 16. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012a. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), RareFind Version 3.1.0. August 2012 data. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. January. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens Ust. 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.cdtca.gov/webdata/maps/statewide/fvegwhrl3_map.pdf California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2009. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. June 11. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (v7-12aug 8-10-12). Data provided by the participants of CNPS. Accessed August 22, 2012, available at http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/iny/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.goy/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. A*T|/'|MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 IVIIliJ Page IS-68 November 14. 2012 \3 a ENVIRONMENTAL 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/publicationid/publicationid_149_579.pdf City of Carlsbad. 2011a. Revised Vegetation Community Data Provided by City of Carlsbad GIS. Data available at the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. 2011b. Carlsbad Municipal Code. October 25. Available at http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientlD=16245&stateid=98istatename=California City of Carlsbad. 2011c. SDGE Energy FY 07/08 With Facility ID, Cost and Usage. Provided by Elzbieta Karczewski on December 6, 2011. City of Oceanside. 2002. City of Oceanside General Plan, Environmental Resource Management Element June. City of Vista. 2011. Vista General Plan 2030 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009121028). December. County of San Diego (County). 2009. San Diego County General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2002111067. County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group. 2009. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance-Paleontological Resources. January 15. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. 2012. Draft County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance. June 20. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program - San Diego County Important Farmland 2006. August. Dudek. 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates. SCH #2003051014. October. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. August. Kennedy, M.P., and S.S. Tan. 2002. Geologic Map ofthe 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-l.html San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. April 22, 2009. Accessed November 3, 2010, available at http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/2009-RAQS.pdf San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2011. 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Report for San Diego County. September 28. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2008. Final 2008 Congestion Management Program Update. November. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2004. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California. October 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/ A'TIf I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptember 19, 2012 ' •^••^'^ PagelS-69 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at http://www.fws.goy/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 ofthe primary resources consulted for the preparation ofthe 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 m 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 etal. 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 ofthe proposed project. Biological Resources Bio-IA 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.) octivo nosts or any troo pruning or romovol oporotions during the prime nostinggeneral breeding seasons, that being from March 15 to Moy 30 January 15 to September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey sholl sun/ey tho trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet ofthe areas planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular proiect component.of troo romovol or pruning. If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction, or if any active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for construction, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor construction activities. No construction activities shall ne troo pruning or removal operations can occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nestvacated or until the end of the prime general breeding season, whichever occurs later. Afl^lMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 •^"^'^ Page IS-70 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY oddition, prior to any troo romovol or pruning oporotions proposed outsido of tho primo nesting sooson but within tho period of Jonuory 15 to Soptombor 15, oA qualified biologist shall confirm^ in writing^ that - no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans. Bio-IB Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8. and ES 9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular proiect 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 ofthe 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-IF. Bio-lC Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio- IB 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 ofthe 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 ofthe project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior to and concurrent with construction. Bio-ID 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-IB that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence. Bio-IE Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IB 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 iyflf I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 PagelS-71 November 14, 2012 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. Bio-IF Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-IB 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 ofthe sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. Hazarcis and Hazardous Materials Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements. Haz-2 Construction Worker Health and Safety Work Plan. Prior to construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, or ES 18, CMWD shall have a project-specific health and safety work plan prepared and distributed to the construction workers to address the potential exposure to hazardous materials associated with working with or near contaminated soil. This work plan shall comply with all County of San Diego DEH work plan requirements including Community Health and Safety Planning to address physical hazards, site security, management of soil and water, and monitoring equipment. A description of engineering controls and measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site workers, public and the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the construction area shall be provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The engineering controls and measures to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1) An exclusion zone and support zone shall be established prior to start and during excavation activities. No unauthorized personnel shall be allowed in these zones. Personnel authorized to work in these zones shall have the required training and qualifications including OSHA HAZWOPER training. 2) Written notifications shall be posted on the perimeter fencing in advance of start of excavation to notify the general public and hotel staff/operators of the nature and duration of work activities. The postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers. 3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones. 4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks or respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek protective clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or ear muffs. 5) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting the exclusion zone. 6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or 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. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page IS-72 September 19, 2012 November 14. 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY 8) Exposure to dust and potential inhalation hazards shall be controlled by lightly spraying the excavated materials with clean water as they are stockpiled on site or as they are transferred to trucks for shipment offsite. A dust monitor shall be used on site to measure airborne dust during activities that are expected to generate dust. If dust levels exceed permissible exposure levels as set by OSHA standards, additional measures for dust control such as the use of industrial non-toxic dust suppressants shall be implemented. 9) Runoff around the excavation site shall be controlled by placing fiber rolls or other similar types of erosion and runoff control means to direct surface runoff and to protect the nearby downstream storm drains. 10) Vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall be directed away from the construction zone prior to and during excavation and follow-on activities in accordance with a traffic plan approved by the City of San Diego or City of Oceanside, as applicable, and in coordination with CMWD. Applicant Concurrence with Mitigation Measures This is to certify that I have reviewed the above mitigating measures and concur with the addition of these measures to the project. Signed yftm^ g t^^^^^^^ . Date 09/m /m/Z- Printed Name ^////^^ T^/c^mmPr- yyyi^ll^^ CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptomber 19, 2012 Page IS-73 November 14, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY This page intentionally left blank. Anri/^IMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 •^••''^ PagelS-74 November 14, 2012 Appendix A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features Regulatory Compliance Construction and operation of the Phase III project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to various environmental topics, such as the following. Air Quality During construction activities for proposed project components, CMWD would comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. Rule 55 requires the following: 1. No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity in a manner that discharges visible dust emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period; and 2. Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track- out/carry-out shall be minimized by the use of effective trackout/carry-out and erosion control measures listed in Rule 55 that apply to the project or operation. These measures include track-out grates or gravel beds at each egress point wheel-washing at each egress during muddy conditions; soil binders, chemical soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; watering for dust control; and using secured tarps or cargo covering, watering, or treating of transported material for outbound transport trucks. Biological Resources Prior to construction activities for projects located within the boundaries of the city, and where it has been demonstrated that the project could result in impacts to biological resources addressed in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities, including HMP Species, Narrow Endemic Species, HMP Habitats, Existing and Proposed HMP Hardline Preserve Areas, Special Resource Areas, and HMP Core and Linkage Areas, as defined in the HMP, the CMWD would demonstrate how implementation ofthe 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. Cuiturai 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 Ukely 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 ATlf IKIC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 IXllliiJ Page A-1 November 14. 2012 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 regulations (Title 8 ofthe California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and in Section A33 ofthe 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 ofthe State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCB, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4 permit). Project components not falling within the triggering coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For Phase III project covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prescribing Best Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms, straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff, and may include measures to minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the following: • Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized. • Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping. • Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels. • Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the project components and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents. • Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are detained (e.g., siltation basins). ATI^IMC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptember 19, 2012 * *• IXIIIU Page A-2 November 14, 2012 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction and operation ofthe project components would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing the use, management handling, storage, release reporting and response actions, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous waste. These laws include: • U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which provides the 'cradle to grave' regulation of hazardous wastes; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq.), commonly known as the "superfund" law addressing remediation of contaminated sites. • U.S. Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 5101 et seq.), which governs hazardous materials transportation on U.S. roadways. • California Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.) and Hazardous Substances Account Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 25300 et seq.). • California Proposition 65, formally known as "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986" (Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.6, Sections 25249.5 through 25249.13), requiring persons and entities doing business in California using specific listed chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm or birth defects to provide a clear and reasonable warning to individuals entering the site regarding the presence of such chemicals, and the implementing regulations for such laws. • County of San Diego Consolidated Fire Code, which regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. During construction, these laws govern the manner in which hazardous materials may be transported, used, stored, and disposed of as well as the handling and disposal of demolition debris containing hazardous waste. During operations, these laws govern the use, management storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and the management handling, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes. Table 1 Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals Agency/Department Permit/Approval Action Associated With or Required For State Agencies State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 DWQ Storm Water discharges associated with construction activity. State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements (Water Code 13000 et seq.) Discharge of waste that might affect groundwater or surface water (point/nonpoint-source) quality. California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a deferred certification area in the coastal zone. California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit (California Streets and Highwavs Code Sections 660 et sea.) Consider issuance of permits to cross state highwavs. Local Agencies City of Vista Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. City of Vista Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW. City of Carlsbad Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. City of Carlsbad Discretionary Permit Required for construction activities within the city requiring discretionary approval. City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan Take Permit Required for potential impacts to sensitive species or habitats covered by the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. City of Carlsbad Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a coastal zone. City of Oceanside Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW. City of Oceanside Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page A-3 Soptombor 19, 2012 November 14, 2012 14^ 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 III project would incorporate the following project design features. Aesthetics The following measures would be implemented into the design and construction of the Phase III project to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase III project: • Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal. • Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to those depicted on construction drawings. • All roadway features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, etc) and structures within state and private rights-of-way will be protected, maintained in a temporary condition, or restored. • Disturbed areas will be restored following construction consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by CMWD or the City, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by CMWD or the City to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CIP pipeline projects that would require trenching or that would require the temporary removal of concrete or asphalt the disturbed area will be repaved to be consistent with the existing material. Air Quality The following BMPs would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction of Phase III project: Water or dust control agents will be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt stockpiles as necessary to prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne. All soil to be stockpiled over 30 days will be protected with a secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent windblown dust. Covering/tarping will occur on all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways unless additional moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport Soil handling operations will be suspended when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. The construction supervisor will have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating wind speed. Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadway will be swept or vacuumed and disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. During periods of soil export or import when there are more than six trips per hour, dirt removal from paved surfaces will be done at least twice daily. Disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as work in the area is complete. Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply wherever feasible, to avoid or minimize the use of engine-driven generators. Air filters on construction equipment engines will be maintained in clean condition according to manufacturers' specifications. The construction contractor will comply with an approved traffic control plan to reduce non-project traffic congestion impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with existing traffic and the prevention of truck queuing around local sensitive receptors will be incorporated into this plan. Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences. Trucks and equipment will not idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service. ATTIf I KIC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 •^••^•^ Page A-4 November 14. 2012 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT 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, and stormwater conveyance systems. Cultural practices such as restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer applications, storage or disposal of toxic chemicals, or washing of vehicles or equipment in areas that can drain to the estuary. - Public education programs that educate residences about proper disposal of oil or chemicals and that provide opportunities (e.g. designated locations) for residents to properly dispose of contaminants. • For clearing, grading, and other construction activities within the watershed, ensure that proper irrigation and stormwater runoff mitigation measures are employed to reduce sediment loads and to prevent contamination from pesticide, fertilizers, petroleum products, and other toxic substances. • Restrict or limit recreational or other activities within 200 feet of important forage, breeding, and roosting areas. • Require attenuation measures for activities that generate noise levels greater than 60 dBA if occurring within 200 feet of important breeding habitat during the nesting season. • Restrict construction hours to daytime hours that do not require the use of construction lighting. Cuiturai and Paleontological Resources The following procedure for unintentional disturbance of cultural resources will be implemented to minimize impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources during construction of Phase III project: • If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during CIP project construction, or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered, all ground-disturbing activity will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist retained by the City or CMWD for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. No further grading will occur in the area of the discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation will be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the City or CMWD where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Geology and Soils The following measures will be implemented into the construction and operation of Phase III project to minimize potential risks from geologic and soil hazards: • A site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each CIP project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil, which would determine the risk to the project associated with fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils. The geotechnical investigations will describe site-specific conditions and make recommendations that will be incorporated into the construction specifications for the CIP project. Recommendations may include, but would not be limited to the following typical measures: ATI^I MC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptomber 19, 2012 iVIIlU Page A-5 November 14. 2012 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 denslfication 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 ofthe appropriate discharge permit. Noise The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation ofthe project components to minimize noise effect to surrounding neighborhoods: Heavy equipment will be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences. Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators and compressors, will be maintained in proper operating condition and will be equipped with manufacturers' standard noise control devices or better (e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging, and/or engine enclosures). Construction work, including on-site equipment maintenance and repair, will be limited to the hours specified in the noise ordinance of the affected jurisdiction. Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, in order to avoid or minimize the use of engine-driven generators. Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences. Operating equipment will be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations. If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices will be powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine. CMWD or their construction contractors will provide advance notice, between two and four weeks prior to construction, by mail to all residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. For projects that would require pile driving or blasting, noticing will be provided to all residents or property owners ATlf I KIC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 IXIIliiJ Page A-6 November 14, 2012 1* 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 construction and develop procedures for responding to callers. Procedures for reaching the public liaison officer via telephone or in person will be included in notices distributed to the public in accordance with the information above. Transportation/Traffic The following measures would be implemented during construction ofthe Phase III project to minimize traffic effects to surrounding neighborhoods: • Prior to construction, the City will prepare a traffic control plan and coordinate with the cities of Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos to address traffic during construction of project components within the public right-of-ways ofthe 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. A~r|f|KiC CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND September 19, 2012 •XII^'J Page A-7 November 14, 2012 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES This page intentionally left blank. AT|^|K|C CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Soptombor 19, 2012 •XlllitJ Page A-8 November 14, 2012 Appendix B Sensitive Biological Resources Tables Sensitive Natural Communities Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Global State MHCP Mitigation Ratio'^' Community Rank'^' Rank<^' Habitat Group'^' Mitigation Ratio'^' Non-native grassland G4 S4 E 0.5:1 Valley needlegrass grassland Gl S3.1 B 3:1 Diegan coastal sage scrub G3 S3.1 C 2:1 Diegan coastal sage - chaparral scrub G3 S3.2 C 2:1 Chamise chaparral G4 S4 D 1:1 Scrub oak chaparral G3 S3.3 D 1:1 Southern maritime chaparral Gl Sl.l B 3:1 Southern mixed chaparral G4 S4 D 1:1 Coast live oak woodland G4 S4 B 3:1 Southern coastal live oak riparian forest G3 S4 A 3:1 (No Net Loss) Southern riparian forest G4 S4 Southern riparian scrub G3 S3.2 Coastal and valley freshwater marsh G3 S2.1 San Diego mesa claypan vernal pool G2 S2.1 A 5:1 (2) 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 steep declines, or other factors. Less than 6 viable element occurrences or less than 1,000 individuals or less than 2,000 acres. G2 = Imperiled-At high nsk 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. 51 = 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.l = very threatened; S1.2 = threatened; S1.3 = no current threats known. 52 = Imperiled-lmperiled 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. 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 (3) (4) ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-1 September 19, 2012 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring wittiin Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status'^' State Status'^' CNPS Ust''' General Habitat Associations NON-VASCULAR bottle liverwort Sphaerocarpos drewei IB.l Chaparral, coastal scrub. California screw moss Tortula californica 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Campbell's liverwort Geothallus tuberosus IB.l Coastal scrub, vernal pools. coastal triquetrella Triquetrella californica 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Shevock's copper moss Schizymenium shevockii 1B.2 Cismontane woodland. ashy spike-moss Selaginella cinerascens 4.2 Coastal sage scrub, chaparral. Fern California adder's-tongue fern Ophioglossum lusitanicum ssp. californicum 4.2 Chaparral, grasslands, vernal pools. Angiosperms - Monocotyledons California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica FE SE IB.l Vernal pools. Orcutt's brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii IB.l Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland, closed-cone coniferous forest cismontane woodland, chaparral, meadows. San Diego goldenstar Muilla clevelandii IB.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 IB.l Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Angiosperms - Dicotyledons Blochman's dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae IB.l Coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill grassland. California adolphia Adolphia californica 2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland. chaparral sand-verbena Abronia villosa var. aurita IB.l Chaparral, coastal scrub. cliff spurge Euphorbia misera 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub. Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri IB.l Coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Dean's milk-vetch Astragalus deanei IB.l Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest. decumbent goldenbush Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens 1B.2 Coastal scrub. Del Mar manzanita Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifoHa FE IB.l Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest. Del Mar Mesa sand aster Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia IB.l Chaparral, coastal scrub. dwarf burr (San Diego) ambrosia Ambrosia pumila FE IB.l Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Encinitas baccharis Baccharis vanessae FT SE IB.l Chaparral. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-2 September 19, 2012 (5 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status'^' State Status'^' CNPS List''' General Habitat Associations Engelmann oak Quercus engelmgnnii 4.2 Chaparral, coast live oak woodland, grassland. Gambel's water cress Nasturtium ggmbelii FE ST IB.l Marshes and swamps. little mousetail Myosurus minimus ssp. a pus 3.1 Vernal pools. many-stemmed dudleya Dudleya multicaulis 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Moran's navarretia Navarretia fossalis FT IB.l Vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps, playas. mud nama Nama stenocarpum 2.2 Marshes and swamps. Nuttall's scrub oak Quercus dumosa IB.l Closed-cone coniferous forest chaparral, coastal scrub. Orcutt's hazardia Hazardia orcuttii FC ST IB.l Chaparral, coastal scrub. Orcutt's linanthus Linanthus orcuttii 1B.3 Chaparral. Orcutt's spineflower Chorizanthe orcuttiana FE SE IB.l Coastal scrub, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest. Palmer's goldenbush Ericameria palmeri ssp. palmeri 2.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral. Parry's tetracoccus Tetracoccus dioicus 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. prostrate vernal pool navarretia Navarretia prostrata IB.l Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Rainbow manzanita Arctostaphylos rainbowensis IB.l Chaparral. Robinson's pepper-grass Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub. round-leaved filaree California macrophylla IB.l Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego barrel cactus Ferocactus viridescens 2.1 Chapparal, Diegan coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego bur-sage Ambrosia chenopodiifolia 2.1 Coastal scrub mostly associated with maritime succulent scrub. San Diego button-celery Eryngium ari stu la tum var. parishii FE SE IB.l Vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. San Diego marsh-elder Iva hayesiana 2.2 Marshes and swamps, playas. San Diego sagewort Artemisia palmeri 4.2 Riparian, wetland, adjacent uplands. San Diego thorn-mint Acanthomintha ilicifolia FT SE IB.l Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. smooth tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis IB.l Valley and foothill grassland, chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, riparian woodland. snake cholla Opuntia californica var. californica IB.l Chaparral, coastal scrub. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-3 September 19, 2012 (51 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status'^' State Status'^' CNPS List"' General Habitat Associations southern tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. australis IB.l Marshes and swamps (margins), valley and foothill grassland. Southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus var. leopoldii 4.2 Riparian, wetlands, vernal pools. summer holly Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia 1B.2 Chaparral. variegated dudleya Dudleya variegata 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. wart-stemmed ceanothus Ceanothus verrucosus 2.2 Chaparral. Western dicondra Dichondra occidentalis 4.2 Coastal sage scrub. willowy monardella Monardella viminea FE SE IB.l Coastal scrub/alluvial ephemeral washes with adjacent coastal scrub, chaparral, or sycamore woodland. * ' Federal Status - FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD = Delisted State Status - SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened CNPS- lA = Plants presumed extinct in California; IB = 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 of threat), x.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened). X.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Source: CDFG 2012; CNPS 2012; Consortium 2010; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et al. 2003; Ogden et. al.l998 ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-4 September 19, 2012 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status'^' State Status'^' General Habitat Associations INVERTEBRATES Crustaceans Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE Found in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub habitats. San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE Vernal pools. Insects Hermes copper butterfly Lycaena hermes Found in southern mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub at westem edge of Laguna mountains. Harbison's dun skipper Euphyes vestries harbisoni Riparian woodland, riparian scrub, oak woodland. Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves, such as eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and cypress trees where nectar and water sources are available. AMPHIBIANS Arroyo toad Bufo californicus FE SSC Semi-arid regions near washes, rivers, or intermittent streams, including valley-foothill and desert riparian areas and desert washes. Coast Range newt Taricha torosa torosa SSC Lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1 km to breed in ponds, reservoirs, coastal drainages, or slow moving streams. Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Occurs primarily in ponds located in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. REPTILES Coast (San Diego) horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum (blainvillii population) SSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral in arid and semi-arid climate conditions. Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Brushy or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern California. Coastal western whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Found in deserts and semiarid areas with sparse vegetation and open areas and in woodland and riparian areas. Coronado skink Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis SSC Found in grassland, chaparral, pinyon-juniper and juniper sage woodland, and pine-oak and pine forests. Northern red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber ruber SSC Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland, and desert areas from coastal San Diego County to the eastern slopes of the mountains. Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra SSC Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley-foothill hardwood habitats. Rosy boa Charina trivirgata Found in desert and chaparral habitats from the coast to the Mojave. Prefers moderate to dense vegetation and rocky cover. San Diego ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus similis Found in open, fairly rocky areas and in moist areas near intermittent streams. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-5 September 19, 2012 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status'^' State Status'^' General Habitat Associations Silvery legless lizard Annlella pulchra pulchra SSC Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks, where soil is moist. Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys marmorata pallida SSC Inhabits permanent or nearly permanent bodies of water in many habitat types below 6,000 feet. Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Found in or near permanent fresh water and often along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth. BIRDS American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum FD SE Found near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water or on cliffs, banks, dunes, or mounds. Bank swallow Riparia riparia ST Nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats west of the desert. Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi SE Inhabits coastal salt marshes. Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli WL Nests in chaparral dominated by faidy dense stands of chamise. Found in coastal sage scrub in south of range. Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC Open, dry annual, or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actio WL Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats. Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis SSC Coastal sage scrub with tall Opuntia cactus for nesting and roosting. Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica FT SSC Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas, and on slopes. Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooper// WL Open, interrupted, or marginal type woodland. Nest sites mainly found in riparian growths of deciduous trees in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains. Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Found on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in the interior ofthe State. Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills, and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos FD SE, SFP Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert. Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC Favors native grasslands with a mix of grasses, forbs, and scattered shrubs. Large-billed savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC Salt marsh. Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE SE Summer resident of southern California in low ripanan in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft. Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC Found in marshlands and borders of ponds and reservoirs which provide ample cover. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-6 September 19, 2012 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status'^' State Status'^' General Habitat Associations Light-footed clapper rail Rallus longirostris levipes FE SE Sal marsh. Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, joshua tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oasis', scrub and washes. Long-eared owl Asia otus SSC Riparian bottomlands with tall willows, cottonwoods, or coast live oaks adjacent to open land with ample prey. Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC Coastal salt and fresh-water marsh. Nest and forage in grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain marshes. Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL Ocean shore, bays, fresh-water lakes, and larger streams. Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly. Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed chaparral. Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax fro/7/// extimus FE SE Riparian woodlands. Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSC Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with available insect prey. Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus FT SSC Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large alkali lakes. White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Shallow fresh-water marsh. White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus SFP Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging. Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri SSC Prefers riparian plant associations such as willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for nesting and foraging. Also, found in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests. Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC Summer resident that inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses. MAMMALS American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Northwestem San Diego pocket mouse Ch aetodip us fallax fallax SSC Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, and sagebrush. Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimemhris pacificus FE SSC Found within 4 km ofthe coast on fine-grained sandy substrates in coastal sage scrub, coastal strand, and river alluvium. Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC Found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-7 September 19, 2012 09 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status'^' State Status'^' Getieral Habitat Associations San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Found in coastal sage scrub with intermediate canopy stages of shrub habitats and open shrub / herbaceous and tree / herbaceous edges. San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Moderate to dense canopies of coastal scrub. Abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes. Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC Found in moist coastal forest to semi-desert scrublands, near riparian areas and wetlands. Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus SSC Found in many open and semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, and chaparral. Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC Prefers riparian areas dominated by cottonwoods, oaks, sycamores, and walnuts. Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum Found in a wide range of habitats near water, including arid wooded, brushy uplands, and open stands in forests and woodlands. Seeks cover in caves, buildings, mines and crevices Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert washes, and palm oasis habitats. Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Optimal habitats are open forests and woodlands with sources of water over which to feed. Southern mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Variety of habitats over a broad range. Federal Status - FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD = Delisted '^' 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 III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Page B-8 September 19, 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 1456 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD), TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE AN APPLICATION FOR A LOAN AND GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FOR THE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT. WHEREAS, CMWD has completed a Feasibility Study and financing plan of the Phase III Recycled Water Project; and WHEREAS, the Phase III Project has an estimated project cost of $29,400,000 which is to be funded in part from a low interest loan and grant from the California State Water Resources Control Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Executive Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized and directed to sign and fiie, for and on behalf of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, a Financial Assistance Application for a loan and/or grant from the State Water Resources Control Board in an amount not- to-exceed $30,000,000 for planning, design, and construction of the Phase III Recycled Water Project. 3. That the District authorizes the aforementioned representative or his designee to certify that the District has and will comply with all applicable state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements related to any loan and/or grants received. 4. That the Executive Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute, upon approval by the General Counsel and final approval of the contract by the Board of Directors, a loan/grant contract and any amendments or change orders thereto and certify loan/grant disbursements on behalf of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District that are in substantial conformance, as determined by the office of the General Counsel, with the terms and conditions of this resolution and accompanying Carlsbad Municipal Water District agenda bill. 6"^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Board Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas, Packard NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: LORRAWOE %yiQPD, <6e|bretary (SEAL) Karen R. Kundtz, Assistant Secretary 4k: c/3 — 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 1457 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD), TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE DEDICATION OF A REVENUE SOURCE FOR THE DISTRICT'S REPAYMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD LOAN AND DEDICATION OF A CAPITAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE PHASE HI RECYCLED WATER PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District has authorized the Executive Manager, or his designee, to apply for a State Water Resources Control Board Loan to fund all or a portion of the cost of expansion and improvement of the Recycled Water System; and WHEREAS, the Board desire to finance the costs of constructing the Phase III Recycled Water Project; and WHEREAS, the Board intends to finance the construction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys (Project Funds) provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board; and WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes (Obligations); and WHEREAS, prior to either issuance of the Obligations or approval by the State Water Resources Control Board the Project Funds the Board desires to incur certain capital expenditures with respect to the Project from available moneys of CMWD; and WHEREAS, the Board has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the CMWD for the expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The Board hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the the State Water Resources Control Board of the Project Funds. 3. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Project Funds is $30,000,000. 4. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which CMWD will expend moneys for the Project costs to be reimbursed with Project Funds. 5. Each expenditure by CMWD will be of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles. 6. The Board is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by CMWD that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued. 7. This resolution expresses the intent of the Board in order to comply with Treasury Regulations 1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs. 8. That CMWD hereby dedicates the Recycled Water Rate Fund, and if insufficient, the Water Replacement Fund to repayment of any and all State Water Resources Control Board Loans on the Phase III Recycled Water Project. This dedicated source of revenue shall remain in effect until the loan is fully discharged unless modification or change of such dedication is approved in writing by the State Water Resources Control Board. /// /// /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Board Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas, Packard NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: LORRA (SEAL) Karen R. Kundtz, Assistant Secretar) 2:55 -z CD: o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B^JOlbff 5 RESOLUTION NO. 1458 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD), TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE AN APPLICATION FOR A LOAN AND GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TITLE XVI GRANT FUND FOR THE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT. WHEREAS, CMWD has completed a Feasibility Study and financing plan ofthe Phase III Recycled Water Project; and WHEREAS, an application may be submitted to obtain a 25 percent project grant, based on the total project cost of the Phase III Recycled Water Project, through the Bureau of Reclamation, for construction ofthe Phase III Recycled Water Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Executive Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized and directed to sign and file, for and on behalf of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, an application for a 25 percent project grant to the Bureau of Reclamation. 3. That the grant contract shall be submitted to the Board of Directors for final approval prior to execution of the grant contract. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 10 AYES: Board Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas, Packard NOES: None ABSENT: None 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Board of 2 Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th ^ day of November, 2012, by the following vote to wit: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ATTEST 14 15 16 LORRAHSTE M.^WOQ0, Set^ary (SEAL) Karen R. Kundtz, Assistant Secretar) 17 :<;g 2:oj 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 1459 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD), TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE FUND FOR THE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT. WHEREAS, CMWD has completed a Feasibility Study and financing plan ofthe Phase III Recycled Water Project; and WHEREAS, CMWD has determined it in the public interest to appropriate the necessary fund to provide additional cash flow for the project until the grants and loans are received. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the Finance Director, is authorized to appropriate $2,940,000 from the Water Capital Replacement Fund to the Phase III Recycled Water Project, Project No. 5022. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 •19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the 27th day of November, 2012, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Board Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas, Packard NOES: None ABSENT: None MATT HALL, President ATTEST: LORRAWE I^^IJ^QpO, S§jfretary (SEAL) Karen R. Kundtz, Assistant Secretar S:o3 - CITY OF OCEANSIDE WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT July 9, 2012 Carlsbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Bill Plummer Subject: Letter of Interest for Recycled Water/Phase III This letter is being written to express the City of Oceanside's interest in the purchase of recycled water from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Specifically, Oceanside is interested In the availability of recycled water at the Intersection of El Camino Real and Hwy 78 as well as availability at College, to the south of Hwy 78. Later this year. Oceanside will be updating its Recycled Water Master Plan which will consider various options, Including the purchase of recycled water from Carlsbad, to serve the southern portion of the City of Oceanside. The connections of Interest above, have the potential to serve customers such as the El Camino Country Club, Mira Costa College and the Leisure Village neighborhood. The purchase price for recycled water will be a heavily weighted factor when the City considers its options for supplying recycled water to Its customers. Carl Dale Water Utilities Director Cc: Jason Dafforn, City of Oceanside 300 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY • OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 • TELEPHONE 760^35-5800 • FAX 760-435-5814 Board of Directors Edmunri K. Sprncjiie, Presidnnt Robert F. Topolovac, Vice President Christy Guerin, Treasurer |rald E. Vcirty Secretary awrencG A. Watt. Director QUVENIiAlN General Manager Kimberly A. Thornoi. \ r-.t\. Municipal Water Dislrict July 16, 2012 Carlsbad Municipal Water District Attn: Bill Plummer 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Carlsbad Municipal Water District Recycled Water Project Phase III Dear Mr. Plummer, On behalf of Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), I am writing to confirm our interest in the potential purchase of recycled water from Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) forthe purposes of supplying OMWD recycled water customers. As you are aware, OMWD has begun design work for the expansion of recycled water infrastructure in its northwest quadrant, specifically into the Village Park neighborhood in Encinitas. At present, OMWD projects that recycled water deliveries in Village Park will begin in Fiscal Year 2014. OMWD is currently evaluating ali potential sources of recycled water by which to supply customers In this area. As CMWD's Phase ill Recyded Water Project includes a pipeline that could provide recycled water to OMWD's northwest quadrant, OMWD considers CMWD to be a potential source. The source for recycled water in the northwest quadrant will ultimately be determined by such factors as the cost to OMWD for the recycled water, the terms of a recycled water purchase agreement, and the ability to meet OMWD's Intended delivery dates to recycled water customers. For additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760-753-6466. Regards, Kimberly Thorner feneral Manager 1966 Olivenhain Road • Encinitas. CA 92024 Phone (760) 753-6466 • Fax (760) 753-1578 • www.olivenhain.com A Public Agency Providing Water Wastewater Sen/ices Recycled Water Hydroelectricity Elfin Forest Recreational Resen/e Boajri of Diioclois \/^tSlFjA. Jo MacKon/io,/V(i:.«/r>(ii IRRIGATION Marty Miller fe Jl Mkt^ DIS TRIC T '- 1391 Engmeer Street • Vista. California 92081-HH40 . , . ^'^^ Phone: (760) 597-3100 • Fax: (760) 598-8757 www.vid-h2o.org Admin i.strative Staff Roy A. Coox October 6, 2011 Eldon L. Boone Assistant Goneral Mnnnger / lionsuier William E. Plummer Lisa n. soto Carlsbad Municipal Water District ^^^^ ^Z^^H 5950 El Camino Real ^^^''^JlTclS Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Recycled Water Dear Bill, In response to your letter dated September 26, 2011, the Vista Inigation District (VID) is interested in considering the potential purchase of recycled water to serve the Shadowridge Golf Course. This concept was presented to our Board of Directors at their Regular Board Meeting of October 5, 2011. Obviously, before any fmal decision can be made, there will be many details to discuss, including the cost of the recycled water and arrangements for capital facilities. • Additionally, coordination will be required with other entities such as the City of Vista, the Shadowridge Golf Course, and the County Health Department. We look forward to exploring this potential arrangement with you in further detail. We are available to meet to discuss potential terms of an agreement at your convenience. If you have any questions or require fuither information, please feel free to call me at (760) 597-3113. Sincerely, Brian S. Smith Director of Engineering cc: Roy Coox, General Manager Don Smith, Director of Water Resources Frank Wolinski, Operations Manager Z:\Engineering\JOBS\Letter of Interest to Carlsbad.doc A puhUc agency sen'ing the city of Vista aiid portions of San Marcos, Escondido, Oceanside and San Diego County Phase III Recycled Water Project and Mitigated Negative Declaration Case No. EIA 12-02 Presentation for Public Hearing November 27, 2012 Existing Recycled Water System •TREATMENT PLANTS (Supply to Carlsbad) –Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (4.0 mgd) –Meadowlark Reclamation Facility (3.0 mgd) –Gafner Water Reclamation Plant (1.0 mgd) •78 miles of Pipelines •4 – Pumping Stations •35.5 MG Existing Storage (3 Tanks/1Res.) •679 RW Meters @ 357 Sites Phase III Project Feasibility Study •Increase demand from 4,100 AFY to 7,235 AFY –Cooling Towers & Industrial Use –Landscape Retrofits –Future Development –Neighboring Agencies •Increase Treatment Capacity –4 MGD Expansion of Carlsbad’s Treatment Facility •Increase Distribution System –18 miles of pipe (4-inch to 18-inch) –1.5 MG storage reservoir –156 metered service connection NE: Quary Creek Hope Elem. Cantarini NW: Cannon Park Power Plant Avenidas Encinas SW: Carlsbad Corp. Center Lakeshore Gardens San Pacifico SE: La Costa Condum. Fire Station No. 2 La Costa Resort Oceanside: El Camino C.C. Ocean Hills C.C. VID: Shadow Ridge G.C. OMWD: Village Park Summary of Demand by Identification Source Total Recycled Water Demand 7,235 Existing Customers (2012) 4,100 afy 57% Phase III Customers (Inside Service Area) 1,985 afy 27% Neighboring Agencies 1,150 afy 16% Phase III Project 3,135 afy CMWD Projected Water Supplies SDCWA 82% Recycled Water 18% Year 2010 SDCWA 68% Recycled Water 23% Desalinated Water 9% 2020 with Phase III & Desalination 8 Capital Costa For Phase III Project Distribution Pipelines $ 20,700,000 CWRF 4.0 mgd Expansion $ 6,900,000 1.5 MG Steel Tank Reservoir $ 1,800,000 Total $ 29.4 million CIP Funding Sources CMWD $ 2,900,000 SWRCB Low Interest Loan $ 27,000,000 Grants Received to Date SDCWA LISA Grant $ 170,500 Prop 84 Round 1 Grant $ 130,000 Potential Grants BUREC Title XVI Grant $ 7,350,000 BUREC WaterSMART $ 300,000 - 1,500,000 Army Corps of Engineers (WRDA) $ 2,000,000 SWRCB Grant (Prop. 13) $ 5,000,000 Prop 84 Round 2 Grant $ 200,000 - 475,000 Annual Cost of Phase III Project Operations & Maintenance $ 860,000 Capital Depreciation (50 yrs.) $ 600,000 Total $ 1.46 million Incremental Costs per Ac.-Ft. $466 CEQA - Environmental Review Process 12 •Evaluated impacts from implementation of the Phase III Recycled Water project •References studies prepared for Program EIR 12-01 for the 2012 Sewer, Water, and Recycled Water Master Plan Updates •Prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) •CEQA process –30-day public review (9/19/12 – 10/19/12) –Received comment letters •Response to comments is included in the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 •Most impacts are less than significant –Most segments are located in disturbed areas –Projects Design Features and construction measures are built into the project •Several segments may have potential impacts –Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources –Exposure to Contaminated Soils •Mitigation Measures are included to mitigate impacts to a “less than significant” level Recommended Actions •Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Case No. EIA 12-02 •Approve Application for State Loan & Grant •Approve Dedication of Revenue Source for Loan Repayment •Approve Application for Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI Grant •Approve appropriation of Funds for Phase III Recycled Water Project Questions 15