HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-20; Planning Commission; ; CUP 2020-0003, CDP 2020-0021, (PUB 2019-0006) - Recycled Water Phase III - D-4 Reservoir
Item No.
Application complete date: Feb. 4, 2022
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 20, 2022 Project Planner: Eric Lardy
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: CUP2020-0003, CDP 2020-0021, (PUB 2019-0006) – Recycled Water Phase III – D-4
Reservoir - Request for approval of findings that the proposed project is consistent with
the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and approval of Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit
amendments to construct a recycled water tank at an existing city water facility at 6580
Black Rail Road. The project is within the Mello II segments of the Local Coastal Program
and within Local Facilities Management Zone 20. This project is not located within the
appealable area of the California Coastal Commission.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7457 APPROVING Conditional
Use Permit Amendment CUP 2020-0003 and Coastal Development Permit Amendment CDP 2020-0021
based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) started its recycled water program in 1990 with Phase I, and
by 1995, CMWD served over 1,000 acre-feet per year (afy) of recycled water. In 2000, Phase II was
implemented with the construction of the 4-million gallons per day (mgd) Carlsbad Water Recycling
Facility (CWRF). As a part of Phase II’s implementation, the Planning Commission approved a Zone change,
Conditional Use Permit CUP 03-15 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 03-23 on Oct. 1, 2003 to add a
recycled water pump station to the existing facilities at 6580 Black Rail Road.
Phase III, which started in 2012, expands the treatment capacity of the city from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd.
Phase III would install 18 miles of new pipeline and construct a new 1.5 mg storage tank. On Nov. 27, 2012
the CMWD Board of Directors approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Phase III
project. Subsequently, the CMWD Board of Directors modified certain Phase III implementation projects
and approved an addendum to the MND on July 17, 2018, adding two new pipeline extensions on
Tamarack Avenue and Marron Road and identifying a new proposed location for the new 1.5 mg storage
tank. The new storage tank is proposed to be located on the D tank site (D-4), near Black Rail Road.
The project is being presented before the Planning Commission because the CMC Section 21.10.020
requires public and quasi-public building and facilities to obtain a CUP in the One Family Residential (R-
1) Zone; and Chapter 21.42 requires Planning Commission approval of certain conditionally permitted
land uses (Section 21.42.070). The proposed project is a modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to construct the 1.5 mg recycled water tank. The project
3
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report .
0
CUP2020-0003CDP 2020-0021 (PUB 2019-0006) – Recycled Water Phase III: D-4 Reservoir
July 20, 2022
Page 2
site is located at 6580 Black Rail Road and is comprised of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 215-081-15-00
and 215-081-16-00. The site is subject to the R-4 Residential (R-4) General Plan Land Use Designation and
is located in the One Family Residential (R-1) Zone. The site, referred to as D-4, is developed with an
existing Water Treatment Facility and there are three other existing water tanks on the site. Access would
be provided by Black Rail Road. Earthwork will consist of 140 cubic yards of cut and 4,500 cubic yards of
fill material. There are no off-site improvements associated with this project.
TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE
Location General Plan
Designation Zoning Current Land Use
Site Residential-4 One Family Residential (R-1) Water Treatment Facility
North Residential-4 One Family Residential (R-1) School
South Residential-4 One Family Residential (R-1) Single Family Residential
East Residential-4 One Family Residential (R-1) Single Family Residential
West Residential-4 / Open
Space (O-S)
One Family Residential (R-1) Single Family Residential
III. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance;
B. Conditional Use Permit (CMC Chapter 21.42);
C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program
(CMC Chapter 21.201); and
D. Growth Management (CMC Chapter 21.90).
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency
with the applicable city regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above
regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
The Land Use and Community Design Element requires that public facilities be provided in the city
adequate for the projected population. The proposed expansion at this site, which adds a 1.5 mg storage
tank, is consistent with the designations of R-4, Residential 0-4 units per acre in the General Plan, and the
zoning designation of R-1, One-Family Residential. Through issuance of the CUP and CDP Amendments,
public and quasi-public utility buildings and facilities and related uses are allowed by the General Plan and
by CMC Sections 21.04.297 and 21.10.020.
Since the completion of the master plan document, numerous planned recycled water projects have been
implemented including new pipelines have been constructed, repair and rehabilitation projects have
taken place, and new customers have been connected. The D-4 site has been used as a city reservoir for
approximately 40 years. The site is developed with an existing Water Treatment Facility and there are
three other existing water tanks on the site.
The project also complies with other General Plan goals and policies as outlined in Table 1 below:
CUP2020-0003CDP 2020-0021 (PUB 2019-0006) – Recycled Water Phase III: D-4 Reservoir
July 20, 2022
Page 3
TABLE B – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE, OR PROGRAM PROPOSED USES & IMPROVEMENTS COMPLY?
Land Use &
Community
Design
Ensure that adequate public
facilities and services are provided
in a timely manner to preserve the
quality of life of residents (Growth
Management Goal 2-G.21)
Installation of the 1.5 Million-Gallon
Tank will complete the anticipated
improvements as part of this phase
and provide additional resiliency
within the system.
Yes
Sustainability Reduce the city's reliance on
imported water (Goal 9-G.4).
Construction of this facility will
provide additional storage for the
city’s recycled water goals by
implementing the last phase of the
city’s recycled water plan.
Yes
Undertake measures to expand the
use of recycled water for landscape
irrigation and commercial and
industrial process water (Water
Conservation, Recycling and supply
Policy 9-P.5)
B. Conditional Use Permit (CMC Chapter 21.42)
The site is subject to the land use regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, included in the CCMC, Title 21. As
discussed above, the proposed uses are allowed with issuance of a CUP in the zoning designation of R-1,
One-Family Residential. Per section 21.54.125, amendments to approved development permits follow
the same procedure required for approval, therefore amendments to CUP 03-15 are reviewed and
approved based on the same standards.
To approve or amend a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must make the four specific
findings listed in CMC Section 21.42.030. As discussed below, each of these findings can be made.
1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community and is in
harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, including, if applicable, the
certified local coastal program, specific plan or master plan, in that the proposed project is
consistent with the existing use on the site and goals and policies in the general plan to support
sustainability and use of recycled water. The Phase III improvements, including the addition of a
new 1.5 mg storage tank at the D-4 site would help maximize recycled water production, delivery
and service and optimize system reliability.
2. That the requested use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the
zone in which the proposed use is to be located in that the project was evaluated in the mitigated
negative declaration and addendum and there are no significant environmental impacts.
3. That the site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, setbacks, walls, fences, parking, loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in this code and required by the City Planner, planning
commission or City Council, in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood, in
that the new tank is similar to bulk and scale of the existing facilities currently visible. The site
is developed with an existing Water Treatment Facility and there are three other existing water
tanks on the site.
CUP2020-0003CDP 2020-0021 (PUB 2019-0006) – Recycled Water Phase III: D-4 Reservoir
July 20, 2022
Page 4
4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic
generated by the proposed use, in that the mitigated negative declaration and addendum
studied transportation and traffic impacts. Access to the site is for staff only, therefore there
will only be temporary minor impacts to circulation. A traffic control plan will be implemented
during construction.
C. Conformance with the Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local
Coastal Program (CMC Chapter 21.201) and the Costal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC
Chapter 21.203).
The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program LCP regulates all development within the state-designated
Coastal Zone within the city boundaries. The City of Carlsbad LCP consists of six geographic
segments: the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment comprised of (all acreage figures are approximate)
1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello II segment with 5,250
acres; the West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties segment with 200 acres; the East Batiquitos
Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment with 1,000 acres; and the Village-Barrio segment with 150 acres. The
proposed project is in the Mello II segment of the LCP. The site is not within the appeals jurisdiction. The
project’s compliance with each of these programs and ordinances is discussed below:
1. Mello II Segments of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies
No sensitive coastal resources or vegetation exist on the site, and there is no impact to the coastal
resources included in this permit amendment. The site does not preclude any shoreline access, and
drainage will be regulated and modified by the city’s implementation of regional stormwater
requirements and compliance with all provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
D. Growth Management (CMC Chapter 21.90)
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 20 in the Southwest Quadrant
of the city. The project is in compliance with the adopted performance standards and would provide the
necessary public facilities identified in the facilities plan.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et.
seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), a Responsible Agency complies with
CEQA by considering the environmental document prepared by the Lead Agency and by reaching its own
conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved. In this instant, the CMWD is acting as
the Lead Agency, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving and implementing
the project. The City of Carlsbad is the public agency (Responsible Agency), which has discretionary
approval power over the portion(s) of the project under its jurisdiction.
Section 15168 set the criteria for use of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for later activities
to determine if an additional environmental document must be prepared. Section 15168(c)(2) directs a
Program EIR to utilize the specific process referenced in Sections 15162 through 15164 that set the criteria
for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when
there is a previously adopted Negative Declaration (ND) or a previously certified environmental impact
report (EIR) covering the project for which a subsequent discretionary action is required. On Nov. 27,
CUP2020-0003CDP 2020-0021 (PUB 2019-0006) – Recycled Water Phase III: D-4 Reservoir
July 20, 2022
Page 5
2012, the Board of Directors of the CMWD adopted Resolution No. 1455, (Exhibit 3) approving a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Phase Ill
Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02; State Clearinghouse No. 2012091049). This Project is a sub-component
(Storage Tank) of the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project and is subject to the mitigation measures that are
identified in the MMRP. On July 17, 2018, the Board adopted Resolution No. 1601 (Exhibit 4), approving
an Addendum to the MND and Supplemental Environmental Package that included the revised location
of the recycled storage tank that was originally analyzed, but at a different location, in the MND prepared
for the Program. None of the circumstances requiring further environmental compliance under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15163 exist. The Project is within the scope of the prior environmental documents and
no further environmental documentation is required per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the prior environmental
document have been incorporated into the construction documents and as conditions of approval, as
applicable, in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7457.
On the basis of the analysis contained in Resolution 7457 (Exhibit 1) approving the project, it can be found
that there are no substantial changes proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous
MND and Addendum to the MND due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Upon approval of the
proposed project, a Notice of Decision will be filed with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse.
EXHIBITS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7457
2. Location Map
3. CMWD Board Resolution No. 1455 (2012)
4. CMWD Board Resolution No. 1601 (2018)
5. Exhibits “A” – “Q” dated July 20 2022
6. Reduced Exhibits
THRASHER PLBLACK RAIL RDWHITESAGEWY
MARITIME DR
SONGBIRD AV
CORTE ORCHIDIA
CABELA PLPOINSETTIA LN
SITIO SAGOSITIO CEDRELANEW CREST CT
DOCENA RDFISHERMANDRTRITON ST
MARTINGALE CT
City of Carlsbad
RECYCLED WATER PHASE III - D-4 RESERVOIR ±Map created by the City of Carlsbad GIS. Portions ofthe DERIVED PRODUCT contain geographic informationcopyrighted by SanGIS. All Rights Reserved
0 200 400 600100Feet
CUP2020-0003 / CDP 2020-0021 / (PUB 2019-0006)
Project
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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 Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.
CASE NAME: PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT
CASE NO.: EIA 12-02.
The Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Carlsbad, California,
does hereby resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program was prepared in conjunction with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled
10
Water Project; and
11
12
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Carlsbad,
California, did on November 27 , 2012, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
13
consider said request; and 14
15 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 16
17 any written comments received, the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District,
18 Carlsbad, California considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the
21 Carlsbad Municipal Water District as follows:
22
23
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Board of Directors
24 of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND" according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent
26 (NOi)," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and
27 made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
28
1
2
Findings:
The Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Carlsbad, California,
3 does hereby find:
4 1. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
5 the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project -EIA 12-02, the environmental impacts therein identified for
6 this project, said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP),
7 on file in the Planning Division prior to APPROVING the project; and
8 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
9 Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental
1 O Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
11 Carlsbad; and
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. It reflects the independent judgment of the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District, Carlsbad, 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.
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
/II
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
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:
LO
(S Secretar
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Phase Ill 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
Contents
Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................................................................................... MND-1
Comments Received on the IS/MND and Responses ...................................................................................... RTC-1
Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study .................................................................................... IS-1
Project Description/Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................... IS-3
Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... IS-3
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................. lS-17
Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................................................................. IS-17
Project Design and Construction Measures .............................................................................................. IS-17
Environmental Initial Study ............................................................................................................................. IS-20
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................................. IS-20
Determination ........................................................................................................................................... IS-20
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... IS-21
Earlier Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... IS-67
Supporting Information Sources ............................................................................................................... IS-68
Biological Resource Database and Literature Review ............................................................................... IS-70
List of Mitigating Measures ...................................................................................................................... IS-70
Applicant Concurrence with Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... lS-73
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Appendices
Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... IS-4
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Facility Locations .......................................................... lS-5
Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion .................................................................... lS-7
Expansion Segment lA ..................................................................................................... IS-9
Expansion Segment 2 ..................................................................................................... IS-10
Expansion Segment 4A ................................................................................................... IS-11
Expansion Segment 5 ..................................................................................................... IS-12
Expansion Segment 7 ..................................................................................................... IS-13
Expansion Segment 8 ..................................................................................................... IS-14
Expansion Segment 9 ..................................................................................................... IS-15
Expansion Segment 18 ................................................................................................... IS-16
Proposed Storage Tank Location .................................................................................... IS-18
Phase II I Indirect Biology Map ........................................................................................ IS-31
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................... IS-19
Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction ............................................ lS-26
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result
in Significant Indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species ..................................... IS-30
City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards ................................................................... IS-54
A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features
B Biological Resources Letter Report
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page i
~eptember 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Number: EIA 12-02
Project Title: Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Project Location
The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in
the County of San Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
service area (see Figure 1). A small portion of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) is located in
the City of Vista and a small component (Expansion Segment 5) is located in the City of
Oceanside. The project components will occur within public rights-of-way (ROW) and
easements, with the exception of a portion of pipeline that would extend across the La Costa
Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2.
The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at the existing
CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, 92011. The new or relocated storage
tank would be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site near the intersection of Poinsettia Lane
and Black Rail Road. Expansion Segment 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 of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases:
Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase Ill, would
expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial
expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project components would be
completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase Ill project would expand the treatment capacity
(from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine
contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate
or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use,
and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion
segment locations throughout the project area (see Figure 2).
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page MND-1 November 27, 2012
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Determination
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of
Carlsbad finds as follows:
[g] 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.
D 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).
D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
Will NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration
is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: November 27, 2012 pursuant to CMWD Resolution No. 1455.
ATTEST:
MATT ::f#Mo//
President, Carlsbad Municipal Water District
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
n-.......... • • ._,I""\ '"' .. , ....... --.-.t-.-... 1"\"7 rtn,,.,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Phase Ill 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 Ill project components would incorporate the applicable Project Design Features that
are listed at the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02)
Page MMRP-1
November 2012
EIA 12-02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bio-lA Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, Project
. 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 of the areas planned for construction. The surveys shall take
place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project
component.
If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for
construction, or if any active passerine (songbird) nests are located on or within 300 feet
of the areas planned for construction, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and
demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor construction activities. No construction
activities shall occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no
longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nest or until the end of the general
breeding season, whichever occurs later. A qualified biologist shall confirm in writing that
no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction
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-lB Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project Project
components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 that will occur within disturbed or developed
land, but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area
supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentially suitable for
special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-
construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project
construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start
of construction for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist
with a copy of the project plans that clearly depict the construction work limits, including
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.
Monitoring
Department
Planning Division
& Biological
Monitor
Planning Division
& Biological
Monitor
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 Ill Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02)
Page MMRP-2
Shown on Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
November 2012
EIA 12-02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Department
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 ca/ifornica californica), migratory songbirds, and other
bird species with the potential to breed in the area. The pre-construction survey results
shall be submitted to the CMWD prior to construction in order to verify the need for
additional construction measures proposed within Bio-lC through Bio-lF.
Bio-le Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of Project Planning Division
mitigation measure Bio-lB that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive & Biological
habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD Monitor
shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange
construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading
and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the
approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for
the duration of construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not
impact habitats to be avoided. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of
impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation
identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction
of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City Planner prior
to and concurrent with construction.
Bio-1D Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general Project Planning Division
breeding season (January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the & Biological
coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory songbirds, and other bird species associated Monitor
with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud construction noise (exceeding
60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting site) may take
place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January
15 through September 15).
If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-lB that the
project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the
general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the
construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction
activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area potentially supporting
breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not exceed 60
dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and
confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of
additional protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any
violation to the USFWS and/or CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence.
:J J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02)
Page MMRP-3
Shown on Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
November 2012
EIA 12-02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Department
Bio-1E Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of Project Planning Division
mitigation measure Bio-18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive and Engineering
habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD Division
shall design final project construction staging areas such that no staging areas shall be
located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval
by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of
equipment outside of the project boundaries.
Bio-1F Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of Project Planning Division
mitigation measure Bio-18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive & Biological
habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD Monitor
shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings to inform
construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or
minimization requirements.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, Project Planning Division
and ES 18, CMWD shall provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of & Construction
California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of contaminated soils. In Monitor
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 Project Planning Division
2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, or ES 18, CMWD shall have a project-specific health and safety work & Construction
plan prepared and distributed to the construction workers to address the potential Contractor
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.
-ATKINS ~
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02)
Page MMRP-4
Shown on Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
November 2012
EIA 12-02 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Department Shown on Plans
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 equipme~t including
gloves, dust masks or respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek protective
clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or ear muffs.
S) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting
the exclusion zone.
6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or Visqueen TM ,if stored
on site, to prevent or reduce off-gassing into the atmosphere and to protect the
stockpile from erosion due to storm runoff. If on-site temporary storage becomes
necessary, the stockpiles shall be placed downwind downstream of any sensitive
receptors in the area.
7) All work shall stop if ambient air concentrations exceed acceptable thresholds as
approved by the San Diego County DEH, and excavation shall be backfilled with inert
soil or other material until concentration drop back to normal.
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 Ill Recycled Water Project (EIA 12-02)
Page MMRP-5
Verified
Implementation Remarks
November 2012
Appendix A
Regulatory Compliance and
Project Design and Construction Features
Regulatory Compliance
Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to
various environmental topics, such as the following.
Air Quality
During construction activities for proposed project components, CMWD would comply with San Diego Air Pollution
Control District Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. Rule 55 requires the following:
1. No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity in a manner that discharges visible dust
emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than
3 minutes in any 60 minute period; and
2. Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track-
out/carry-out shall be minimized by the use of effective trackout/carry-out and erosion control measures
listed in Rule 55 that apply to the project or operation. These measures include track-out grates or gravel
beds at each egress point; wheel-washing at each egress during muddy conditions; soil binders, chemical
soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; watering for dust control; and using 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 Hard line Preserve Areas, Special Resource Areas, and HMP Core and Linkage
Areas, as defined in the HMP, the CMWD would demonstrate how implementation of the project would comply
with the requirements of the HMP, including the established conservation goals and objectives of the HMP, and
the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified for protected resources. The City would use its
land-use regulatory authority to fully implement the provisions of the HMP during project review, and would
follow the project processing implementation procedures as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.210,
Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements.
Cultural Resources
During construction activities, CMWD would comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California
State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, upon unintentional discovery or disturbance of human remains. California
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance will occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be met in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will
conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), if any,
identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to
provide technical assistance to the MLD, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human
remains.
Geology
The design of the project components would implement the relevant requirements of the Uniform Building Code
(UBC), the California Building Code (CBC), and the Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction, as
I\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project MMRP
Page A-1
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 of the California Code of Regulations
[CCR]) and in Section A33 of the CBC. California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117,
"Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," provides guidance for the evaluation and
mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for project components within designated zones of required
investigations.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction activities would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California's Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
RWQCB, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA
and the NPDES program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and
the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of
Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San
Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4
permit). Project components not falling within the triggering coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be
subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to
enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For Phase Ill project covered under the
General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD
would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prescribing Best Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring, inspection,
and record keeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water
discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The
implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control
measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms,
straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control
the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff, and may include measures to
minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering
surface water runoff, such as the following:
■ Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in
the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive
areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized.
■ Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active
construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish
grading and permanent landscaping.
■ Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural
channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is
managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels.
■ Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the
project components and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents.
■ Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are
detained (e.g., siltation basins).
I\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project MMRP
Page A-2
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.
Agency/Department
State Agencies
State Water Resources
Control Board, Regional
Water Quality Control
Board
California Coastal
Commission
California Department
of Transportation
Local Agencies
City of Vista
City of Carlsbad
City of Oceanside
I\TKINS
Table 1 Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals
Permit/Approval Action Associated With or Required For
General Construction Activity Storm Water Storm Water discharges associated with
Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 DWQ construction activity.
Waste Discharge Requirements (Water Code Discharge of waste that might affect groundwater
13000 et seq.) or surface water (point/nonpoint-source) quality.
Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a deferred
certification area in the coastal zone.
Encroachment Permit (California Streets and Consider issuance of permits to cross state
Highways Code Sections 660 et seq.) highways.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Discretionary Permit Required for construction activities within the city
requiring discretionary approval.
Required for potential impacts to sensitive species
Habitat Management Plan Take Permit or habitats covered by the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan.
Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a coastal zone.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water 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 Ill project would
incorporate the following project design features.
Aesthetics
The following measures would be implemented into the design and construction of the Phase Ill project to
minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase Ill project:
■ Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal.
■ Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to those depicted on construction drawings.
■ All roadway features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, etc) and structures within state and
private rights-of-way will be protected, maintained in a temporary condition, or restored.
■ Disturbed areas will be restored following construction consistent with original site conditions and
surrounding vegetation. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by
CMWD or the City, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by CMWD or the City
to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CIP pipeline projects that would require trenching or
that would require the temporary removal of concrete or asphalt, the disturbed area will be repaved to
be consistent with the existing material.
Air Quality
The following BM~s would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant
emissions during construction of Phase Ill project:
■ Water or dust control agents will be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt stockpiles
as necessary to prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne. All soil to be stockpiled
over 30 days will be protected with a secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent windblown dust.
■ Covering/tarping will occur on all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways unless additional
moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport.
■ Soil handling operations will be suspended when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. The construction
supervisor will have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating wind speed.
■ Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadway will be swept
or vacuumed and disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension of particulate matter
caused by vehicle movement. During periods of soil export or import, when there are more than six trips
per hour, dirt removal from paved surfaces will be done at least twice daily.
■ Disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as work in the area is complete.
■ Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply wherever feasible, to avoid or minimize
the use of engine-driven generators.
■ Air filters on construction equipment engines will be maintained in clean condition according to
manufacturers' specifications.
■ The construction contractor will comply with an approved traffic control plan to reduce non-project traffic
congestion impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with existing traffic and the prevention
of truck queuing around local sensitive receptors will be incorporated into this plan.
■ Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences.
■ Trucks and equipment will not idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service.
J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project MMRP
Page A-4
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 Ill project:
■ If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during CIP project construction, or if evidence of an
archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered, all ground-disturbing activity
will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD
to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist retained by the City or CMWD
for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. No further grading will occur in the area of the
discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological
artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation will be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by
the City or CMWD where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Geology and Soils
The following measures will be implemented into the construction and operation of Phase Ill project to minimize
potential risks from geologic and soil hazards:
■ A site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each CIP
project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil, 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:
I\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project MMRP
Page A-5
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 densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics.
For landslides, implement applicable techniques such as stabilization; remedial grading and removal
of landslide debris; or avoidance.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following measures would be implemented into the construction to minimize potential effects related to
hazards and hazardous materials:
■ Fire safety information will be disseminated to construction crews during regular safety meetings. Fire
management techniques will be applied during project construction as deemed necessary by the lead
agency and depending on-site vegetation and vegetation of surrounding areas.
■ A brush management plan will be incorporated during project construction by the City, CMWD, or a
contractor, as necessary. Construction within areas of dense foliage during dry conditions will be avoided,
when feasible.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of project components to
minimize potential effects to hydrology and water quality:
■ A construction spill contingency plan will be prepared for new facilities in accordance with County
Department of Environmental Health regulations and retained on site by the construction manager. If soil
is contaminated by a spill, the soil will be properly removed and transported to a legal disposal site.
■ If groundwater is encountered and dewatering is required, then the groundwater will be disposed of by
pumping to the sanitary sewer system or discharging to the storm drain system according to the
conditions of the appropriate discharge permit.
Noise
The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of the project components to
minimize noise effect to surrounding neighborhoods:
■ Heavy equipment will be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences.
■ Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators and compressors, will be maintained in proper
operating condition and will be equipped with manufacturers' standard noise control devices or better
(e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging, and/or engine enclosures).
■ Construction work, including on-site equipment maintenance and repair, will be limited to the hours
specified in the noise ordinance of the affected jurisdiction.
■ Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, in order to avoid or
minimize the use of engine-driven generators.
■ Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences.
■ Operating equipment will be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise
regulations.
■ If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices will be
powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine.
J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project MMRP
Page A-6
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 of the 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 Ill project to minimize traffic
effects to surrounding neighborhoods:
■ Prior to construction, the City will prepare a traffic control plan and coordinate with the cities of
Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos to address traffic during construction of project components within the
public right-of-ways of the affected jurisdiction(s), including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The
traffic control plan will include signage and flagmen when necessary to allow the heavy equipment to
utilize residential streets. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
school hours and emergency service providers regarding construction times.
I\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project MMRP
Page A-7
November 2012
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE IIIIS/MND AND RESPONSES
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT IS/MND
AND RESPONSES
All comments received on the Draft IS/MND have been coded to facilitate identification and tracking. The
City of Carlsbad received eight comment letters on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period that
began on September 19, 2012 and closed on October 18, 2012. The comment letters on the Draft IS/
MND are listed in Table 1 below. Each of the comment letters were reviewed and divided into individual
comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern. Where a letter comments
on more than one issue, each individual comment issue is numbered (A-1, for example) and a specific
response is included for each issue.
Table 1. Comment Letters Received on Draft IS/MND
Com mentor
A Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
B Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission
C Jacob Armstrong, Chief, Development Review Branch,
Department of Transportation
D Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, Brownfields and Environmental Restoration
Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control
E Ahmad Kashkoli, Senior Environmental Scientist,
State Water Resources Control Board
F James W. Royle, Jr., Chairperson, Environmental Review Committee,
San Diego County Archaeological Society
G Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera
H Paul J. Bushee, General Manager, Leucadia Wastewater District
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-i
Date
October 19, 2012
September 24, 2012
September 24, 2012
October 9, 2012
October 17, 2012
September 28, 2012
October 16, 2012
October 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
STAT£ OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFJCE o/PJ...AN}\;1NG AND REsEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT
EDMtlNI> G. IIROWN Jll
GOVEltNOR
A-1.
October 19. 2012
Barbara Kennedy
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Farad.>y Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
SCH#: 2012091049
Dear Barbara Kennedy:
Tue State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to select"d state
agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has
listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period clo&ed on October 18, 2012, and
the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this ecrnment package is not in order,
please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State
Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond prompt! y.
Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:
"A rcspoasible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those
activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by
specific document.I ti on."
These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should yo1l need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowl,;dg¢5 that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse rcviewrcquiremclllS for
draft c11vironmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the
Sia.le Clearingho11Se at (916) 44$-0613 lfyou bave any questions Rgarding the environmental review
process.
~~
Scott Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacr.imento, califomia 95812-3044
(916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
A-1.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETTER A. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
The two comment letters from the State Clearinghouse state that the City of Carlsbad
has complied with the State Clearinghouse requirements for the review of draft
environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
public review period for the IS/MND extended from September 19, 2012 until October
18, 2012. Three comment letters were received from State agencies during the public
review period: the Native American Heritage Commission (letter B), the Department
of Transportation (letter C), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (letter
D). Additionally, one letter from a state agency was received following the close of the
public review period: the State Water Resources Control Board (letter E).
ATKINS CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-1
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2012091049
Proj9CI Title CMWO Phase Iii Recycled Water PrOject
Lnd Agency Carlsbad, City of
Typ,, MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
Descrlpllan The Phase Iii project would e,pand the lntatmenl capacity (from 4.0 mgd lo 8.0 mgd) within tho
Cartsba<I Water Recycling Facility by installing additional flllratlon units and chlorine coniaet basins.
The Phase Ill project would also Install 96,600 linear ,,,.,1 of pipellnes, reloeale or COO$WC! a ru,w
storege tank, COf1'/0rt exlsbng polable water facilibes to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape
,mgaucn water systems to use recycled water in eigit e'Jlansi<>n,; segment locations throughout the
p,o;eet area.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Bari>ara Kennedy
Agency Carisbad Municipal Waler District
Phone (760) 602-4626
email
Address 1635 Faraday Avenue
Fa,:
City Carlsbad Stat• CA Zip 92008
Project Location
County San Diego
City Carlsbad
R,tg/on
Lat/Long 33•a·18"N111r13•3rw
Cross Strffls Interstate 5 and Palomar A!tpOr: Road
Parcel No. NIA
Township Range
Proximity to:
HighW•Y• Hwy 78
Airports McClelJan..Palomar, Oceanside
Ral/Ml}'S A T&SF and Coaster
Soct/on
Wat-«ys Buena Vl$!a Creek, Agua Hadicnda Creek, San Ma=
Schools Carlsbad Unified District
I.and Use
Project luuas Biological Resources; i oxlc/Hazardous
R<>Vlewing Resource,, Agency; caurcm1a Coastal Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Replon 5;
Agencies Department of Parl(s and Recreation; Department cf Water Resources; Office of Emergency
Management Agency. California: Reso-.m::es, Recy<:ling and Recovery; Cattrans, Division of
AeronsuUcs; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 11: CA Department of Public Health; State
Water Resou,ces Control B®td, Divison of Financial A£61stance; Regional Wat"' Quality Control
Board, Regiol\ 9; Oepar1menl of Toldc Substances Control; Natiite American Heritage Commission;
Public Utilities Commission
Dale Received 00/19/2012 Start of Review 09/19/2012
ATKINS
End ofRevlllw 10/18/2012
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-2
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING A~ REsEARCH
S'rATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANN:NC UNIT
EDMUND G. ll!l.OWN JR.
0ovERNOR
October 19, 2012
Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
SCH#: 2012091049
Dear Barbara Kennedy:
The enclosed comment (s) on your Mitigated Negative Declaration was (were) received by the Stan:
Clearinghouse after the end ofthc state review period, which closed on October 18, 2012. We are
forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be
addressed in your final environmental document.
The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments.
However, we enrourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to laking final action on the proposed project.
?lease contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental revi~w process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number (2012091049) when contacting this office.
Sin~~
Seo~~ -•
Director, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency
/\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-3
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
B-1.
B-2.
COMMENTS
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISStON
1115CAPmll.MAU,AOOM3il<
SACRAIIBITO,CA115814
(119) lllllM2t1 l'U(III.,_,_
WN-.wrebF u eo, ~
September 24, 2012
Ms. Barbara Kennedy, Planner
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: SCH#2012091049: CEQA Notice of Completion: proposed Mitigated NGgftlve
Declaration; for the "Phase Ill Recycled Water Proieqt {EIA 12.02)" located In the City of
Carlsbad; San Diego County. Callfomia
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the State of Califomia
'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resourc::es
pursuant to Callfomia Public Resowces Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court
in the case of EPIC V. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3111 604).
This letter includes state and federal statutes relating b> Native American
historic properties or resources of religious and cultural significance to Amerk:an Indian tribes
and interested Native American individuals as 'consulting parties' under both state and federal
law. State law also address. the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public
Resources Code §5097.9.
The Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA -CA Public Resources Code
21000-21 tTT, amendments effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes
archaeological resources, ls a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental
lmpacl Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment
as 'a substantlal, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within
an area affected by the proposed project, lnclllding ... objects of historic or aesthetic
significance.• In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess
whether the project will have an adVerse Impact on these resources within the 'area of potential
effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC recanmends that the lead agency
request that the NAHC do a Sacred lands Fde search as part of the careful planning for the
proposed project.
The NAHC "Sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and
the Carlfomla Legislature in Califomla Public Resources Code§§S097.94(a) and 5097.96.
ltema in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public
Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ).
Earty consultation with Native Amefican tribes in your area is the best way to avoid
unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project Is underway.
Cullurally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural
B-1.
B-2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETTER B. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
The first comment introduces the letter and states the role of the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC} as a protector of California's Native American Cultural
Resources. The comment describes the definition of 'significant effect' related to
archaeological resources per CEQA guidelines; recommends an NAHC Sacred Lands
File Search because the Area of Potential Effect for projects components are known
to be very cultural sensitive; and states that Sacred Sites, as defined by the California
Public Resources Code, and items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential.
Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural resources
records search performed by Atkins at the South Coastal Information Center in January
2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Sewer, Water, and Recycled Water Master Plans
EIR (Master Plans EIR), which included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed
Phase Ill project. A NAHC SLF search was conducted for the Master Plans EIR. The
search identified known archaeological resources throughout the CMWD service area;
however, the project components would be constructed in previously disturbed areas.
This comment recommends consultation with an attached list of Native American
contacts. Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural
resources records search for the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan
and CMWD Water and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH
#2012021006) (2012 Master Plans EIR}, which included the proposed project as part
of the Recycled Water Master Plan. As discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources,
of the 2012 Master Plans EIR on page 4.4-6, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave
Singleton of the NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, letters to each of
the tribal contacts identified by NAHC in its February 15, 2012 letter, submitted during
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period, were sent by Atkins on February
24, 2012. The letters sent to the tribal contacts described the proposed project that
contained maps of the proposed CIP locations, and requested information about the
SLF-listed resources, as well as information about any resources not listed in the SLF for
inclusion in this report.
ATKINS CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-4
November 14, 2012
8-2.
cont.
8-3.
8-4.
8-5.
8-6.
COMMENTS
significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you
make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American
contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to
obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public
Resources Code § 5097 .95, the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order
that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information.
Consultation with Native American communities Is also a matter of environmental justice as
defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code
§5097 .95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal
parties, including archaeological studies. The NAHC recommends 8\IOldance as defined by
CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native
American cultural resources and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2
(Archaeological Resources) that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources.
construction to avoid sites and the possible use of covenant easements to protect sites.
Furthermore, the NAHC If the proposed project Is under the jurisdiction of the statutes
and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act{e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321-43351).
Consultation with tribes and Interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list,
should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 108 and
4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the Presidenfs
Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.C 4371 ftt seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001-
3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the lnterlonlStandanis for the Treatment of
Historic Properties wen, revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types
inclUded in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also,
federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (pr9SelV8tion ofcultllral environment), 13175
{coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for
Section 108 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include
recommendations for all "lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects
and to "research" the cultural landscape that might Include the 'area of potential effect.'
Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be
considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected
under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Sea-etary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the
federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or
not to disclose items of reiigious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APEs and
poSSlbility threatened by proposed project activity.
Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code
§27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 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. project proponents and their
contractors. in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relatiOnship built
around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes wlU lead to more qualitative
consultation tribal input on specific projects.
Fmally, when Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial sites are
8• 7. prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends 'avoidance' of the site as referenced by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a).
8-3.
8-4.
8-5.
8-6.
8-7.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE I11 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment recommends consultation with tribes and interested Native American
parties, in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA). The proposed project does not involve a federal action or federal agency
and is therefore not subject to the requirements of NEPA or Section 106 of the NHPA.
Should the CMWD pursue federal funding in the future, such as through the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, the CMWD will undergo consultation with tribes and
interested Native Americans in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. As
discussed in response to comment B-2, letters to each of the tribal contacts identified
by NAHC during the 2012 Master Plans EIR NOP comment period, which included the
Phase Ill Project components, were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012.
This comment describes the requirements for confidentiality related to historic
properties of religious and cultural significance. The IS/MND recognizes these
requirements; therefore, no sensitive information related to any cultural resources was
disclosed in the IS/MND.
This comment describes regulations that outline procedures to be followed in the
event of an accidental discovery of human remains. As discussed in Section 5 d) of IS
checklist, the procedures detailed in PRC Section 5097.98 and California State Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be implemented in the event of unintentional
disturbance of human remains.
This comment is related to consultation with Native American representatives. Tribal
contacts were consulted as part of preparation of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which
included the Phase Ill Project components. Refer to response to comment B-2 for
additional information.
This comment describes the CEQA recommendation to avoid Native American cultural
sites and/or Native American burial sites. Avoidance has already been incorporated in
the project by locating the Phase Ill Project components in previously disturbed areas,
such as within existing roadways and the developed South La Costa Golf Course.
/\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-5
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
If you have any questions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to
Attachment: Native American Contact List
/\TKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-6
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
Barona Group of the Gapitan Grande
Edwin Romero, Chairperson
1095 Barona Road Olegueno
Lakeside , CA 92040
sue@barona-nsn.gov
(619) 443-6612
619-443-0681
La Pasta Band of Mission Indians
Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson
COMMENTS
Native American Contacts
San Diego County
September 24, 2012
Vlelas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Anthony R. Pico, Chairperson
PO Box 903 Dlegueno/Kumeyaay
Alpine , CA 91903
Jrothauff@vlejas-nsn.gov
(619) 445-3810
(619) 445-5337 Fax
Jamul Indian VDI~
Raymond Hunter, Chairperson
PO Box 1120 Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O. Box 612 Olegueno/Kumeyaay
Boulevard , CA 91905
gparada@lapostacaslno.
(619) 478-2113
619-478-2125
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians
Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson
PO Box 365 Dlegueno
Valley Cenl$1', CA 92082
allenl@sanpasqualband.com
(760) 7 49-3200
(760) 749-3876 Fax
S)'CU81'! Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Daniel Tucker, Chairperson
5459 Sycuan Road OieguenoJKumeyaay
El Cejon , CA 92019
ssilva@sycuan-nsn.gov
619 445-2613
619 445-1927 Fax
TNsllotlo""""'1lonly•oftna_of __
Jamul , CA 91935
jamulrez@SCldv.net
(619) 669-4785
(619) 669-48178-Fax
IVlesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
Mark Romero, Chairperson
P.0Box270 Dlegueno
santa Ysabel, CA 92070
mesagrandeband@msn.com
(760) 782-3818
(760) 782-9092 Fax
Pala Band of Mission Indians Historic Preservation Offloe/Shasta Gaughan
35008 Pala Temecula Road, Luiseno Paia--, CA 92059 Cupeno
PMB50
(760) 891-{31515
sgaughen@palatribe.com
(760) 742-3189 Fax
D-olthls llst_not ___ ofU..~ '"flOMlbllilr a defined ln-7GIO.Softho H-and Sialoty<:oM,
$ectloft909T.Mdtho P\lbllc-CodoandSoctlonSOl7.llofthoPublk:-Code.
Tittoollollo..,.,.._forc:ontac:flnglocol N ___ NOardll>_,_..,_,.,...,__d
•Cllflll1211911149; CEQA -of Compi<ltiOII: pftll)ooed -gad Hog--for tho -IQ Rllc:yelod-PIOje<I; localod
1n tho City otCarlsbod; sao Piogo c...,.,iy, C■llfomiL
~ ATKINS
c:---
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-7
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
Native American Contacts
San Diego County
September 24, 2012
Pauma & Yulma Reservation
Randall Maje!, Chairperson
P.O. Box 369 Lolseno
Pauma Valley CA 92061
paumareservatlon@aol.com
(760) 742·1289
(760) 742~ Fax
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
Vincent Whipple, Tribal Historic Preationv. Officer
P .0. Box 68 Lulseno
Valley Center, CA 92082
twolfe@rincontribe.org
(760) 297-2635
(760) 297-2639 Fax
KwaaymH Laguna Band of Mission Indians
Carmen Lucas
P.O. Box 775 Oiegueno •
Pine Valley , CA 91962
(619)709-4207
lnaia Band of Mission Indians Rebecca Osuna, Chairman
2005 S. Escondk!o Blvd. Diegueno
Escondido , CA 92025
(760) 737-7628
(760) 747-8568 Fax
Thh> llot lo cunw,tallly n olthe -of lhlo -..nent.
Pauma Valley Band of Lulsel'io Indians
Bennae Calm:, Tribal Council Member
P.O. Box 369 Lulseno
Pauma Valley CA 92061
bennallcalac@aol.com
(760) 617•2872
(760) 742-3422 • FAX
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
Bo Mazzetti, Chairperson
P.O. Box 68 Luiseoo
Valley Center, CA 92082
bomazzettt@aol.com
(760) 749-1051
(760) 749-8901 Fax
San Pasqual Band of Indians Kristle Orosco, Environmental Coordinator
P.O. Box 365 Lulseno
Valley Center, CA 92082 Olegueno
(760) 749-3200
council@sanpasqualtribe.org
(760) 749-3876 Fax
Ewliaapaayp Tribal Office Will Micklin, Executive Director
4054 Willows Road Dlegueno/KUmeyaay
Alpine , CA 91901
wmicklln@leaningrock.net
(619) 445-6315 • voice
(619) 445-9126 • fax
Dlslr1butionofthlo 1st-not---olthe-ry -nsiblilll' • defined In $ecllor1 7058.S ofb Heallll-Saloly Code,
S.ollon 5197.94 oft.he Publlc -Codoand-sot7.98 ofClle Pullllc-Codo.
Thlollstlsapplloai..for--.a focal--With "'!IMll<>alltwal _,,usr...thepn,poud
oCHHll12llt1-CEQA -of C-lellon; pr_..i 1111..-d Neg--la,lho Phoae II Recyclod-Prcfld; locallld
In aw QI¥ of~ S..Dlogo~. c:amamia.
0J ATKINS
V')
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-8
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14. 2012
COMMENTS
Native American Contacts
San Diego County
September 24, 2012
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
Cultural Department
1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno
Vista , CA 92081 Cupeno
760-724-8505
760-724-2172 -fax
La JoUa Band of Mission Indians Lavonne Peck, Chairwoman
22000 Highway 76 Luiseno
Pauma Valley CA 92061
rob.roy@lajolla-nso.gov
(760) 742-3796
(760) 742-1704 Fax
lpai Nation of Santa Ysabel
Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources
P.O. Box 507 Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Santa Ysabel, CA 92070
cjllnton73@aol.com
(760) 803-5694
cj1inton73@aol.com
lnter•Trlbal Cultural Resource Protectlon Council Frank Brown, Coordinator
240 Brown Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Alpine , CA 91901
frankbrown8928@gmail.com
(619) 884-6437
TIiis 11st lsoun'Olltonty •of ... _oflhlo-
Kumey813Y CUltUral Repatriation Committee
Bernice Paipa, Vice Spokesperson
1095 Barona Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay
Lakesk:le , CA 92040
(619) 478-2113
(KCRC Is a Colation of 12
Kumeyaay Governments
01-of_ list_ not,_....., ponlOftofthe~--lbllllY •-ln-.., 7050.Softho Hedh and SafelY~.
-cn5097.MofthoPUllllc-urc:es~andSodlonll097.NoflhePubllc-.,,._c_,
Tlllsllstls_...-f<l<-ngloeal--wilh .. gotdto_,.._,_for:lhepropooed
sClll2012ffl04t; CEQA N-of C-plM!an; --MltiQalod Negallw Dtcla-n forlha Phala III Racydod -Pn,jo<t; -
In lhe City of carlsbod; -OilQO County, Collfamia.
ATKINS CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-9
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
ST61'10fCftlte)f?ft:':dl!CSM'ttUbNVQl1ATD1u,......,6),fQ.....,.lfll.,.'NllKl""""NEK'X""""'...,_ _________ _.,,,IPY!!OWll"'ll12.!AiJIIQl!JIIBlll!au:.>c.i.--
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTIUCT It. DIVISION OF PLANNING
40S0 TAYLOR ST, M.S. 240
SAN l>JEOO, CA 9:ZIIO
PHONE (619)QS.6960
FAX (619)6"-4299
TIY 711
www.dot.et.p
C-1.
September 24, 2012
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
11-SD-5
PM 44.07-50.68
Carlsbad MWD Phase ill Recycled Water
MND / SCH #2012091049
Toe California Department of Transportation (Calt:rans) received the Mitigated Negative
Declaration {MND) for the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled
Water project (SCH #2012091049) for the City of Carlsbad. Caltrans has the following
comments:
Ally utility crossings of freeways will need an encroachment permit from Caltrans. Please refer
to Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual
(http://www.dot,ca.goy/hqltraffops/developserv/pennits/eneroaclpnent permits manual/index.ht
ml) for guidance on utility en<:roachment
Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the
Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158. Early coordination with Ca1trans is strongly advised
for all encroachment permits.
If you have any questions, please contact Leila Ibrahim, Development Review Branch, at (619)
688-6802.
&7Z'£¥-r: ARMSTRONG, Chief
Development Review Branch
C-1.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE I11 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETTER C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
This comment states that any utility crossings of freeways will need an encroachment
permit from Caltrans and provides sources of information regarding encroachment
permits. Table 1 on page A-3 in Appendix A of the IS/MND, Federal, State, or Local
Permits and Approvals, has been revised to include encroachment permits from
Caltrans in the list of applicable permits for the proposed project. An encroachment
permit would potentially be required for Phase Ill Project component ES 5 that
proposes construction on either side of State Route 78.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-10
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
'\ I ~~ e Department of Toxic Substances Control
11111/tlJ-Rodrique,:
Seaelary lot
environmental PrQtectloo
October 9, 2012
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
Deborah 0. Raphael, Di<ector
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Edmund 0. Brown Jr. --
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD} PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER
PROJECT, (SCH#2012091049}, SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Initial
Study (IS) and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND} for the above-mentioned
project. The following project description is stated in your document:
"The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill Project) is located in the City of
Carlsbad (City) in the County of San Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District (CMWD) service area. 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 Ill, would expand
CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion
into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project 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.
The Phase Ill project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. Existing
land uses in the project vicinity include residences, commercial centers, industrial and
business parks, and utility infrastructure. The Phase Ill project would be constructed
within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF), within existing and planned
roadway right of way (ROW). and within the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway
(BNSF) railroad right of way.•
D-1. 1) The MND should evaluate whether conditions within the Project area may pose a
threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some
of the regulatory agencies:
D-1.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETTER D. DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
This comment states that the 15/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) of the IS checklist, and
included the Geo Tracker and EnviroStor databases, as recommended by the comment.
The Geo Tracker Database identified approximately 50 recorded sites along the
Phase Ill 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. rsed on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments:
( \\ ATKINS CMWDPhaselllRecycledWaterProjectslS/MND(EIA 12-02) \J" I ' I Page RTC-11
November 14. 2012
~
D-1.
cont.
D-2.
D-3.
D-4.
COMMENTS
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
October 9. 2012
Page2
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• EnvlroStor (former1y CalSites): A Database primarily used by the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through
DTSC's website {see below).
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A
database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCUS): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
• Geo Tracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
• Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
2) The MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site within the proposed Project area that may be
contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory
oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to
review such documents.
3) Any environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for a site should
be conducted under a Wolkplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of
any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment
Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in
which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be
clearly summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval
reports by regulatory agencies should be included in the MND.
4) If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being
planned to be demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the
D-2.
D-3.
D-4.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE I11 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the IS/MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any
required investigation or remediation within potentially contaminated areas. Section
(d) of the 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.
This comment states that any environmental investigations, sampling, and/or
remediation should be conducted under a workplan approved and overseen by a
regulatory agency. As described in response to comment D-2, mitigation measure
Haz-2 requires a construction worker health and safety plan that would be submitted
to the DEH for approval. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils,
these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in
accordance with DEH requirements, as required in mitigation measure Haz-1.
This comment states that if demolition would be required, an investigation should
be conducted for the presence of hazardous materials. The proposed project would
not require demolition of any buildings. Existing roadway pavement may be removed
to install pipeline; however these paved areas do not contain mercury or asbestos
containing materials. Mitigation measure Haz-1 requires construction monitoring
by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the
potential presence of hazardous materials. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon
contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a
licensed facility in accordance with DEH requirements.
/\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-12
November 14, 2012
D-4.
cont.
D-5.
D-6.
D-7.
D-8.
D-9.
COMMENTS
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
October 9, 2012
Page3
presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing
materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or
products, mercu,y or ACMs are identified, proper precautioll$ 1:;hould be taken
during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be
remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies.
5} Project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas.
Sampling may be required. lf soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed
and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import
soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure
that the imported soil is free of contamination.
6) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the field activities. If necessary, a health risk assessment overseen and
approved by the appropriate government agency .should be conducted by a
qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are, have been, or will be,
any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the
environment
7) If the project area was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite
soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic
waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if
necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a
government agency at the site prior to construction of the project
8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
{California Code of Regulations, Tille 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that
hazardous wastes will be generated, the facRity should also obtain a United
States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting
(800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous
materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement
for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
9) DTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight
Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a
Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (',/CA) for private parties. For additional
information on the EOA or VCA, please see
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownflelds, or contact Ms. Ma,yam Tasnif-
Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489.
D-5.
D-6.
D-7.
D-8.
D-9
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that contaminated soil may be encountered and should be
properly disposed. Consistent with the recommendations of this comment, mitigation
measure Haz-1 requires construction monitoring by an individual licensed in the State
of California to assess soil conditions for the potential presence of hazardous materials.
In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils, these soils shall be
properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH
requirements.
This comment states that a health risk assessment should be conducted to determine
if there has been or will be any release of hazardous materials as a result of project
construction. An appropriate assessment is already included in the IS/MND. Hazards
and hazardous materials are evaluated in Section 8 of the IS checklist, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials. A records search was conducted for the proposed project in
February 2012, as described in Section 8 d} of the IS checklist. Construction of ES 2,
ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potential to encounter contaminated soil
during construction activities and expose construction workers to a significant hazard.
Therefore, mitigation measures Haz-1 and Haz-2 are identified to reduce potential .
hazards to a less than significant level.
This comment includes recommendations for sites that were previously used for
agricultural activities. The project does not propose any components on lands
previously used for agriculture. The Phase Ill Project components would be located
within existing roadways, CMWD property, and a golf course. Therefore, this comment
does not apply.
This comment lists applicable regulations for facilities that would generate hazardous
wastes. As discussed in Section 8 (a} of the IS checklist, the CWRF expansion would
be the only Phase Ill Project component with the potential to generate hazardous
waste. The CWRF currently uses chemicals and other hazardous materials in its
treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additional use of these
materials, including chlorine. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) has already
been prepared for the CWRF in accordance with DEH, Hazardous Materials Division
requirements. The proposed new CWRF treatment facilities would be required to be
incorporated into the existing CWRF HMBP. Disposal of CWRF equipment, such as
filters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state
and local laws and regulations. Therefore, the commenter's recommendations have
already been incorporated into the IS/MND.
This comment describes services that the DTSC can provide. It does not address
the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the IS/MND. No response is
necessary.
-& /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-13
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
October 9, 2012
Page4
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Rafiq Ahmed, Project
Manager, at rahmed@dtsc.ca.gov, or by phone at (714) 484-5491.
Sincerely.
0--rt f}L-J
Rafiq Ahmed
Project Manager
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program•
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov.
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
P.O. Box806
Sacramento, California 95812
Attn: Nancy Ritter
nritter@dtsc.ga.gov
CEQA#3654
_c ATKINS CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-14
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE I11 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
E-1.
COMMENTS
~
Water Boards
State Water Reeources Control Board
OCT t 7 2012
Barbara KeMedy
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue san Diego, CA 92008
Dear Ma Kennedy:
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/MND) FOR
CARLSBAD MUNlCIPAL WATER DISTRICT (DISTRICT); PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER
PROJECT (PROJECT); SAN DIEGO COUNTY; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012091049
We understand that the Distrtct is pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
finaneing fOrthis Project (CWSRF No. C-00-7151-110). As a funding agency and a state
agency with jurisdiction by law to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California's
water resources, the State Water Resources Control Soard (State Wat.er Board) is providing the
following information and comments on the IS/MND to be prepared for the Project.
Please provide us with the following documents applicabllt to the proposed Project following the E-1.
District's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process: (1) one copy of the draft and
final IS/MND, {2) the resolution adopting the IS/MND and making CEQA findings, (3) all
comments received during the review period and the District's response to those comments, (4)
the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and (5) the Notice of
Determination filed with the San Diego County Cieri< and the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research, State Clearinghouse. In addition. we would appreciate notices of any hearings or
meetings held regarding environmental review of any project& to be funded by the State Water
Board.
The State Wat.er Board, Division of Financial Assistance, is responsible for administering the
CWSRF Program. The primary purpose for the CWSRF Program is to Implement the Clean
Water Act and various state laws by providing financial assistance for wastewater treatment
facilities necessary to prevent water pollution, recycle water, correct nonpoint source and storm
drainage pollution problems, provide for estuary enhancement. and thereby protect and promote
health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the state. The CWSRF Program provides low-
interest funding equal to one-half of the most recent State General Obligation Bond Rates with a
20-year term. Applications are accepted and processed continuously. Please refer to the State
Water Board's CWSRF website at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/Water issuesJprograms(grants loans/slflindex.shtml.
The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
and requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review. Four
enclocures are included that further explain the CWSRF Program environmental review process
and the additional federal requirements.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETTER E. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
This comment states that it is the understanding of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) that the CMWD is pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
financing and outlines the requirements to obtain funding. It is uncertain at this time
whether or not the CMWD will pursue CWSRF funding for this project. However, if
CMWD does choose to pursue this funding, they will comply will all applicable SWRCB
requirements.
~ ATKINS
'\)
CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-15
November 14, 2012
E-1.
cont.
COMMENTS
The State Water Board is required to consult directly with agencies responsible for
implementing federal environmental laws and regulations. Any environmental issues raised by
federal agencies or their representatives will need to be resotved prior to State Water Board
approval of a CWSRF financing commitment for the proposed Project. Forfurlher information
on the CWSRF Program, please contact Mr. Ahmad Kashkoli, at (916) 341-5855.
It is important to note that prior to a CWSRF financing commitment, projects are subject to
p_rovlsions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and must obtain Section 7 clearance_
from ltie United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service {USFWS), and/or
the United States Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for any potential effects to special-status species.
Please be advised that the state Wat.er Board will consult with USFWS, and/or NMFS regarding
all federal special-status species that the Project has the potential to impact if the Project is to
be funded under the CWSRF Program. The District wiff need to identify wne1her the Project wiU
involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth
Inducement, that may affect federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species that
are known, or have a potential to occur on-site, in the surrounding areas, or in the service area,
and to identify applicable conservation measures to reduce such effects.
In addition, CWSRF projects must comply with federal laws pertaining to cultural resouroes,
specifically Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The State Water Board has
responsibility for ensuring oompllanoe with Section 106, and must consult directly with the
caJifomia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). SHPO consultation Is Initiated when
sufficient Information Is provided by the CWSRF appltcant If the District decides to pursue
CWSRF financing, please retain a consultant that meets the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications standards (www.cr.np&.goy/lOC@Haw/arch stnds 9.htm) to prepare
a Section 106 compliance report.
Note that the District will need to identify the Area of Potential Effects (APE), including
construction and staging areas, and the depth of any excavation. The APE is three-dimensional
and includes all areas that may be affected by the Project The APE includes the surface area
and extends below ground to the depth of any Project excavations. The records search request
should be made for an area larger than the APE. The appropriate area varies for different
projects but should be drawn large enough to provide information on what types of sites may
exist in the vicinity.
Please contact Ms. Susan Stewart at (916} 341-6983 to find out more about the requirements,
and to Initiate the Section 106 process.
l ATKINS
\.}J
CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-16
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE I11 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
Other federal requirements pertinent to the Project under the CWSRF Program include the
following:
A Compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act: {a) Provide air quality studies that may have
been done for the Project; and (b) if the Project is in a nonattalnment area or attainment
area subject to a maintenance plan; (i) provide a summary of the estimated emissions
(in tons per year) that are expected from bolh the construction and operation of the
Project for eaoo federal criteria poHutant in a nonattainment or maintenance area. and
indicate if the nonattainment designation is moderate, serious, or severe (if applicable);
(ii) If emissions are above the federal de minlmis leVels, but the Project is sized to meet
only the needs of current population projections that are used In the approved State
Implementation Plan for air quality, quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity
increase was calculated using population projections.
8. Compliance with the Coastal Zone Management ArJ.: identify whether the Project is
within a coastal zone and the status of any coordination with the California Coastal
Commission.
E-1. C. Protection of Wetlands: Identify any portion of the proposed Project area that should be
cont. evaluated for -1lands or United States waters delineation by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE), or requires a permit from the USACE, and Identify the
status of coordination with the USACE.
D. Compllance with the Fannland Protection Policy Act: Identify whether the Project wiU
result In the conversion of farmland. Statlil the status of farmland (Prime, Unique, or
Local and Statewide Importance) fn the Project area and determine if this area is under a
WDllamson Act Contract.
E. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act List any birds protected under this act
that may be impacted by the Project and identify conservation measures to minimize
impacts.
F. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Ad.: Identify whether or not the Project is
in a Flood Management Zone and include a copy of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency flood zone maps for the area
G. Compliance with the WIid and Scenic Rivers Act: Identify whether or not any Wild and
Scenic Rivers would be potentiaRy impacted by the Project and include conservation
measures to minimize such impacts.
Following are specific comments on the District's IS/MND:
1. Mitigation Measure Bio-1A states that "Prior to removal or damage of any active nests or
any tree pruning or removal operations during the prime nesting seasons, that being
from Marctl 15 to May 30. a qualified biologist shall survey the trees to determine if there
E-2. are any actJve nests within 500 feet of the area of tree removal or pruning.• However,
Page 31, under Biological Resources, mentions that the raptor nesting season is from
January 15-July 31, the general nesting season is from February 1-August 31, and
Mitigation Measure Blo-1D states that the general breeding season is from January 15-
September 15.
E-2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that there are inconsistencies between the breeding seasons
or nesting seasons reported in the IS/MND and that the breeding season should be
consistent with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) requirements.
The discussion of breeding seasons in Section 4 a) of the Initial Study checklist has
been revised to be consistent with the more conservative breeding season identified
in mitigation measures Bio-lA and Bio-1D (January 15 to September 15). The breeding
season definition is consistent with the breeding seasons identified in the Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan, which was approved by CDFG and USFWS. The prime
breeding season identified in mitigation measure Bio-lA is not inconsistent with
the general breeding season, as indicated by the commenter. The prime nesting
season corresponds to a peak time period within the general breeding season when
the majority of bird species known to breed in the region are most likely to have
established a breeding territory and have an association with an active bird nest.
Mitigation measure Bio-lA proposed within Section 4 of the Initial Study checklist
includes pre-construction requirements for a qualified biologist to confirm, in
writing, that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur if project
construction is planned to occur during any portion of the general breeding season
(January 15 to September 15). Nevertheless, to achieve consistency and improve
clarity of the measure, mitigation measure Bio-lA has been revised as stated below
to remove reference to the prime nesting season and ensure that all pre-construction
requirements correspond with the entire general breeding season time period. To
further improve clarity of the measure, mitigation measure Bio-lA has also been
revised to replace the term "vacated" with the statement, "no longer active and all
nestlings have fledged the nest". Mitigation measure Bio-lA has also been revised
to clarify the timeframe for pre-construction surveys. Last, mitigation measure
Bio-lA requires the City to restrict construction activities to ensure that no nest is
inadvertently abandoned by a bird. The City is not proposing a measure to pursue and
require authorization or a permit from the CDFG or USFWS to purposely and actively
cause a nest to be abandoned; therefore, a provision for CDFG and USFWS protocol for
vacating nests is not necessary. Mitigation measure Bio-1B has been revised as follows
to clarify the timeframe for pre-construction surveys.
Bio-1A Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting
birds, including roptors, 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 oeti~e ne,ts o, trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g .•
buildings, bridges. etc.} any t, ee p, uning o, , emo~a/ ope, otion, during the
prime general ne,tmg breeding season$, that being from Ma, eh 15 to Moy
-30January 15 to September 15. the City shall retain a qualified biologist to
,ho,'1 su, ~ey Hie t, ee, perform a pre-construction survey to determine if there
:::§ ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects 1S/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-17
November 14, 2012
E-2.
cont.
E-3.
E-4.
E-5.
E-6.
E-7.
E-8.
COMMENTS
2. Please ensure that the breeding season timeframe is consistent with the California
Department of Fish and Game (OFG} and the UFWS requirements to avoid any
significant impacts or violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If you have any
questions, please consult with the DFG and USFWS regarding nesting seasons for the
special status species listed with a high or moderate potential of occurring within the
Project area. Specify hO'N many days prior to construction (generaDy 30 days) and the
timeframe that a qualified biologist shaU survey. In case of vacating nests, consult with
DFG or USFWS for appropriate protocol measures.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
In order to comply with the MBTA, please include additional mitigation measures if birds
or nests of birds subject to the MBTA are di8COVered outside 1he preconstructiOn survey
window. Pre-construction surveying must be done during the general breeding season,
not just during the prime breeding season, to prevent potential adverse effect to the bird
species.
Identify 1he 3-dimensional APE including the depth of the proposed Project components
and provide a map indicating the location and boundary.
Page IS-36 indicates that a cultural resources records search was performed by Atkins
at the South Coastal Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012
Master Plans EIR which included the APE of the proposed Phase Ill Project. Please
indicate if this records search also Included Twin D site, or the CWRF expansion, or if a
separate records search was performed to inclUde these areas.
Please send a copy of the records search that was done, Including the search request
and associated maps. Copies of site records and previous studies for areas within the
Project APE will be required for SHPO consultation. Please identify areas exhibiting
high archaeological resource sensitivity and include a map ind"icating the relative
sensitivity of the project areas in relation to the Project APE.
Confirm that a Native American Consultation has been completed based upon the entire
project a,ea by providing a copy of the letter and maps sent to the Native American
Heritage Commission, as 'NEIii as copies of the letters and maps sent to the Native
Americans and other Interested parties. Follow-up with phone calls or email, and include
a log of attempted contacts and any responses received. Follow-up on response$ and
include the information in the discussion on consultation.
8. Demonstrate that The Section 106 compfiance efforts and reports have been prepared
by a qualified researcher by providing copies of resumes of the Archaeologists
conducting and providing oversight to 1he Section 106 reporting according to the
Secretary of the Interior's Professional Quallfl08tions Standards
(www.cr.nps.gov/locallaw/ aroh_stnds_9.htm).
E-3.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas oft, ee , emoval a, p, aning_
planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days
prior to the start of construction for a particular proiect component.
If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas
planned for construction, or if any active passerine (songbird/ nests are
located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for construction. the
City shall retain a qualified biologist to flag and demarcate the locations of
the nests and monitor construction activities. No t, ee p, aning o, , emovol
ope, a!io,u ca11 .:onstruction activities shall occur until it is determined by
a qualified biologist that the nests are 'ittXated-no longer active and all
nestlings have fledged the nest or until the end of the prime general breeding
season, whichever occurs later. In addition, p, io, !o any ti ee I emovo,' 01
p, aning ope, atio,u p1 oposed oat:$ide of Nie p, ime nesting ,eo,on bat ~vi thin
the pe, iod ofJonaa, v 15 !o 5eptembe, 15, a.A.qualified biologist shall
confirmL 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-18 Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of
project components ES 1, ES Z, 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.
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 of the preconstruction survey window. The pre-construction survey required
in mitigation measure Bio-18 is not limited to the breeding season. Pre-construction
surveys are required for all project components, regardless of construction schedule.
Therefore, this recommendation has already been incorporated in the IS/MND.
E-4. This comment requests that the IS/MND identify the depth, location. and boundary
of the Phase Ill 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 of the pipe and its depth. The locations of the 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.
\j\ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012
Page RTC-18
COMMENTS
Thank you for the opportunity to review the District's IS/MNO. If you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me at (916) 341-5855, or by email at
AKashkoli@waterooards.ca.gov, or contact Jessica Collado at (916) 341-7388, or by email at
JCollado@wateTboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
A~ ~/4-dtr
Ahmad Kashkoli
Senior Environmental Scientist
cc: State Clearinghouse
(Re: SCH# 2012091049)
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
E-5.
E-6.
E-7.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment requests clarification whether the Twin D site and CWRF expansion
were included in the cultural resources record search. These project components were
included in 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan, and the cultural resources record search
conducted for the 2012 Master Plans EIR.
This comment requests a copy of the cultural resources record search and associated
archaeological sensitivity maps. The commenter is requesting this information for the
purposes of consultation required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF financing.
Should the CMWD pursue CWSRF funding in the future, the CMWD will comply will all
applicable State Water Resources Control Board requirements.
This comment requests copies of correspondence with the NAHC in order to confirm
that Native American consultation has been completed. A description of Native
American consultation is provided in response to comment B-2. As part of preparation
of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave Singleton of the
NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, letters to each of the tribal contacts
identified by NAHC were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. The letters described
the proposed project and contained maps of the proposed CIP locations, including
the Phase Ill project components. Copies ofthe Native American correspondence are
provided as Appendix D to the 2012 Master Plans EIR, available for review at the City of
Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
E-8. This comment requests demonstration of Section 106 compliance. Section 106
consultation is required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF financing. Should the
CMWD pursue CWSRF funding in the future, the CMWD will comply will all applicable
State Water Resources Control Board requirements.
%-ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-19
November 14. 2012
F-1.
F-2.
To:
Subject:
COMMENTS
San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
Environmental Review Committee
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
Planning Division
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
28 September 2012
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Phase lll Recycled Water Project
EIA 12-02
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
I have reviewed the subject DMND on behalf of this committee of the San Diego County
Archaeological Society.
Based on the information contained in the DMND and initial study, we have the following
comments:
1. Page IS-37 of the initial study states that. for areas which "would involve installation ofnew
pipelines located entirely within existing roadways", that "Archaeological resources within
the roadway ROW would have been removed o.r destroyed by previous construction. K Any
number of cases could be cited to disprove this unfounded assumption. The City of San
Diego bas requimi monitoring in many situations for just such work and bas encountered
numerous archaeological deposits which were, in fact. protected by the roadway rather than
destroyed by it. Ms. Myra Hemnann at the City (mhemnann@sandiego.gov) can verify that
fact.
2. To address this possibility, a qualified atcllaeologist must review the entire route of these
new pipelines and identify any areas where unknown subsurface deposits could exist It for
example, development took place in an area prior to CBQA implementation requiring
cultural resources studies, all but the portions of cultural deposits could have been destroyed
without their being recorded. Archaeological and Native American monitoring should then
be required for those portions of the routes of the new pipelines, with detailed requirements
addressing the procedures to be followed if resources are encountered, up to and including
analysis. report preparation and cu.ration of cultural material not associated with human
remains.
P.O. Box81106 San Diego, CA92138-1108 (858) 538-0935
F-1.
F-2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11IIS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LffiER F. SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
This comment states that the conclusion in Section 5 (b) of the IS checklist that
archaeological resources within previously disturbed areas is unfounded because
archaeological resources have been uncovered during similar construction activities in
the City of San Diego. The IS/MND recognizes that, due to the high cultural resource
sensitivity in the area, unknown cultural resources may still be uncovered during
ground disturbing construction activities. Appendix A of the IS/MND, Regulatory
Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features, includes a procedure
for the accidental discovery of archeological resources that would reduce potential
impacts to potentially significant unknown archaeological resources to a less than
significant level. If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during construction,
or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources is
encountered, all ground-disturbing activity will cease within 100 feet of the resource.
A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD to assess the find, and
to determine whether the resource requires further study. No further grading will
occur in the area of the discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to
protect the resources.
This comment states that a qualified archaeologist should review the entire route of
the proposed pipelines and identify any areas where unknown subsurface deposits
could exist. Section 5 of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural
resources records search performed by a qualified archeologist at the South Coastal
Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which
included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase Ill project components.
The purpose of the record search and outreach to Native American contacts, described
in response to comment 8-2, was to identify those projects with the highest potential
for adversely affecting cultural resources. The analysis identified known archaeological
resources throughout the CMWD service area; however, the project components
included in the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project would be constructed entirely within
previously disturbed areas. Therefore, this recommendation has already been
incorporated into the 15/MND.
5 ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-20
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
SDCAS appreciates the opportunity to participate in the City's environmental review process for
this project.
cc: Atkins
SDCAS President
File
_c ATKINS
~
Sincerely,
~~-
Environmental Review Committee
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND [EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-21
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
Barbara Kennedy,
Senior Planner
Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
COMMENTS
October 16, 2012
Subject: Comments on MND
Phase III Recycled Water Project
These comments on the draft MND for the Phase III Recycled Water Project are made on behalf
of Preserve Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization whose mission is to
preserve, protect and enhance the natural resources of coastal north San Diego County.
This project is included as part of the broader program level EIR for the complete Recycled
Water, Sewer and Water Master Plans. This program level EIR for these three plans is still
G-1.
being processed. This project assumes that the mitigation measures included in the as yet G-2.
unadopted program level EIR plus the related mitigation measures included with this project
G-1. 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.
G-2.
G-3.
We see that the full program EIR is moving forward expeditiously and expect the city is
assuming that it will be finalized before this current project level MND is certified. That of
course would address this procedural issue. However the proper sequencing of these two
documents should be identified.
The following are our specific comments on this MND :
Since the program level EIR of which this is a part is not yet finalized. This MND should
specifically state it will incorporate all mitigation measures that are included in the final
certified program level EIR. The current MND has included the mitigation
measures(MM) from the DEIR (with minor modifications) but does not acknowledge that
these may be modified through the final approval process.
-The figures do not show where access will occur in the Shadowridge area of Vista or the
Ocean Hills Country Club area of Oceanside. Please clarify how it is intended that
5020 Nighthawk Way -Oceanside, CA 92056
www.preservecalavera.org
G-3.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETTER G. PRESERVE CALAVERA
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) of the 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 of the IS/MND and was provided on the City's
website. This document is currently available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Therefore, the 2012 Master Plans EIR is
an appropriate document for 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 Ill project, tailored as appropriate to be applicable to the
proposed project, and determined through the project-specific analysis to be sufficient
to reduce Phase Ill project impacts to a less than significant level.
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-lA through Bio-lF 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 15/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.
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 of the IS, existing pipelines extend from the proposed ES
4A project component to the Ocean Hills Golf Course and Shadowridge WRF. 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 of the IS, no new pipelines would need to be installed as part of the
ES 4A project components. Expansion Area 4A would make use of an 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 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-22
November 14, 2012
G-4.
COMMENTS
these systems will be connected and what additional system modifications and impacts
associated with those modifications may occur in the two cities that will be affected by
Carlsbad's plan. It is understood that the City of Carlsbad will not pursue expansion into
these cities until agreements have been reached over such issues and cost sharing. The
need to modify pipelines or other infrastructure within these two cities is a potential
indirect impact that has not been identified or mitigated.
-This MND has not described what actions have been taken to comply with permit
requirements related to wetland impacts. Specifically this requires that impacts are first
G-5. avoided, then minimized and then mitigated. Putting in language that says wetlands
impacts are being avoided does not demonstrate exactly what has been done to assure that
there has been full compliance with this required process.
-Bio 1-b needs to be modified to include that biologist will also assess the open space
areas for potential impacts on wildlife movement corridors and will take action to
mitigate any potential temporary construction or permanent impacts. This should
include not just what is identified as connecting linkages in the HMP, but actual on-the
ground movement corridors that have been modified over time because of construction
and other barriers that have changed historic movement patterns since the MHCP
corridors were mapped 15 years ago. See Wildlife Corridor study submitted to the city as
G-6. part of the analysis done for the new Carlsbad High School by Dudek in April 2010.
-The program level EIR has not included appropriate reference to the adopted Agua
Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and such subsequent watershed
management plans that may be adopted prior to these Phase III projects moving forward.
Reference to the AHWMP as a guidelines document was included in the city's adopted
Drainage Master Plan and should also be incorporated in this project level and the
program level EIR as a guidelines document
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to
address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
Cc: Bryand Duke CDFG,
Janet Stuckrath USFWS
G-4.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the MND has not described what actions would be taken to
comply with wetland permit requirements. As discussed in Section 4c) of the Initial
Study checklist, none of the proposed project components would result in direct
discharge, dredge, or fill activities within jurisdictional resources, including wetlands.
Due to the location of the proposed project components within upland areas, none are
expected to result in inadvertent discharge, dredge, or fill activities within jurisdictional
resources.
Portions of ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, and ES 8 are located within upland areas that occur in the
immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas potentially supporting wetlands. Potentially
significant indirect impacts were identified. Potential indirect impacts to federally
protected wetlands and other jurisdictional resources would be reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards and
regulations discussed in Section 9 and Appendix A of the IS checklist; incorporation
of project design and construction features identified for Biological Resources and
Hydrology and Water Quality in Appendix A of the IS Checklist; and, implementation of
Mitigation Measures Bio-lB, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF.
The proposed project components would not result in direct impacts to wetlands;
therefore, wetland permits would not be required and avoidance has already been
incorporated into the siting and design of the proposed project. Mitigation measure
Bio-lB requires pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist to verify existing
biological resources adjacent to project construction areas, including the presence or
absence of potential jurisdictional resources and wetlands. If potential jurisdictional
resources or other sensitive biological resources are determined to exist or have
the potential to exist adjacent to project construction areas, the City will further
implement Mitigation measure Bio-lC, which requires fencing to be installed to clearly
delineate the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of
environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. In addition,
the City will restrict all construction staging areas through the implementation of
mitigation measure Bio-lE and, through the implementation of mitigation measure
Bio-lF, will retain a qualified biologist to perform contractor awareness training to
inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/
or minimization requirements. Therefore, the IS/MND adequately demonstrates how
impacts to sensitive areas would be avoided, as recommended by the commenter.
G-5. This comment states that the I5/MND should include mitigation to require an
assessment of open space areas for potential impacts to wildlife corridors during
construction. As discussed in Section 4d) of the IS checklist, all of the Phase Ill project
component sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW or
disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The sites
do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of
any known or potential local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. The proposed
project components will be constructed within areas that already represent permanent
development barriers to wildlife movement. As it concerns the project components ~ ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012
Page RTC-23
COMMENTS
/\TKINS
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
identified as having potential indirect impacts on biological resources (i.e., ES 1, ES
2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9), installation and operation activities associated with recycled
water pipelines within existing disturbed and developed areas would not be expected
to adversely affect wildlife movement and would not necessitate the additional
measures suggested by the commenter. Therefore, the recommended modifications
to mitigation measure Bio-lB do not apply to the proposed project.
G-6. This comment states that the 2012 Master Plans EIR does not include appropriate
reference to the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and other
plans that may be adopted prior the Phase Ill projects moving forward. The comment
also states that the AHWMP was incorporated into the City's drainage master plan
and should be incorporated in the IS/MND. The comment as it relates to the 2012
Master Plan EIR does not apply to the proposed project. The Agua Hedionda WMP1
implementation actions are to be implemented by local jurisdictions and agencies,
such as incorporating low impact development techniques into local codes. The Agua
Hedionda WMP does not include requirements to be implemented by individual
developments, such as the Phase Ill project components. Therefore, the WMP is not
considered an applicable local regulations and is not listed in the list of applicable
hydrology and water quality regulations in Section 9a) of the IS checklist. It would be
speculative to include watershed management plans that may or may not be adopted
in the future; therefore, potential watershed management plans are not addressed in
the IS/MND.
1 Tetra Tech. 2008. Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan. Produced for the City of Vista.
August.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-24
November 14, 2012
H-1.
H-2.
UUCADIA
WASnWATm
DlnRl(T
COMMENTS
LEADERS IN
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
October 19, 2012
fl OARD OF Dlft((TOI\S
h HANS-ON, MU\JD-INT
HAfflf HJlUVAN, VICE itRES-!fJlN"f
/1.ltAN ;Ui!UhEN DHH<.:n:';ft
lfAVtD RULO-IJ.-N, DL't£ClOR
!. 0M5HO, D!IHCTOR
!)/-.,'\ I bl:\Httr.tN!RAlMAH/,(,ffl
Rel: 13-3462
Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project EIA12-02)
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
The Leucadia Wastewater District ("LWD•) completed Its review of the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration ("MND") for the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project and has serious
concerns with the document's failure to accurately describe and disclose potential impacts of
the Expansion Segment 8 of the proposed Project ("ES8'). Unlike other elements of the Project
that would expand recycled waler into areas not currently served, ES8 is designed to replace an
existing public service.
ES8 includes a construction of approximately 2,800 linear feet of new pipeline across a private
resort, golf course and regional waterway to supply recycled water to the south course of the La
Costa Resort & Spa. The south course currently receives recycled wal!')r from the Gafner Water
Reclamation Plant ("Gafner Plant'') that is owned and operated by LWD. The effect of ESB
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 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. Instead, the MND erroneously concludes that
the decision to abandon the Gafner Plant has already been made and that construction of the
new pipeline wm not cause any environmental impacts because it will occur within existing
roadways. As describe in more detail below, neither assumption is correct
LWD submits that construction of a new pipeline to duplicate the service of an existing public
facility is not a wise expenditure of public funds. Nonetheless, if the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District ("CMWD') wishes to pursue this course of action, it must first prepare and environmental
impact report c•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.
H-1.
H-2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE I11 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
LETTER H. LEUCADIA WASTEWATER DISTRICT
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 of the Gafner WRF will be determined by the Leucadia
Wastewater District. None ofthe Phase Ill project components would necessitate
demolition or any other physical change to the plant, as discussed in greater detail
in the City of Carlsbad Utilities Department's {Utilities Department) letter dated
November 6, 2012, which is included as Attachment A to this RTC. The Phase Ill project
does not commit the CMWD to constructing a new pipeline. As stated in Project
Description/Environmental Setting on page IS-8 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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
of the 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-lA through Bio-lF would
be required.
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 of the Recycled Water Master Plan.
Please also refer Utilities Department letter responses to comments 5 and 6.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-25
November 14, 2012
H-3.
H-4.
H-5.
COMMENTS
Project Description
The Project description for the ES8 segment does not accurately describe the ultimate purpose of the
ES8 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 Gainer Plant has been the only supply of recycled water to 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 Gainer Plant was
upgraded in 1993 to meet new regulatory standards for recycled water, including a one million gallon
per day filtration plant that provides a third stage of treatment over and above Gainer's original primary
and secondary facilities. LWO 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 1960'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 Recycled Water Mast&r 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 review 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 that 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 Gainer Plant, I can
assure you that this statement Is incorrect. The Gainer Plant has, with few Interruptions,
continuously suppllecl recycied water to under its contract with Carlsbad, since operations of the
upgraded facilities began in 1993. There sre 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 the
operational issues that CMWD currendy 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. "[T]he Gafner WRP Is not optimally utilized since the south golf course demand ls far
less than the minimum amount of recycled water that CMWD ls 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 of golf cOUl"llB tees and
putting greens." This assumption ls flawed because, until recently, LWD was under the
impression that it was supplying the full south course demand for recycled water, which is less
than the take or pay contract amount with Carlsbad. However, the second sentence of this
statement reflects the fact that Carlsbad 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 utillzed under the contract if the City had followed its own ordinance, which would have
saved a significant amount of expenditures for unused recycled water.
H-3.
H-4.
H-5.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the description of ES 8 does not accurately describe the
purpose of the ES 8 element and incorrectly identifies the Gafner Plant as an inactive
facility. Figure 9 has been revised to identify the Gafner WRF as active. Refer to
response to comment 7 of the Utilities Department response letter. The project
does not propose the abandonment of the Gafner Plant. The new pipeline ES8 has
been sized for additiona_l 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.
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 of the Gafner Plant and
include comments on issues regarding the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master
Plan. Please refer to the Utilities Department response to comments 8 through 13.
This section of the letter comments on the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master
Plan. It does not address the analysis of the environmental impacts of the plans
contained in the IS/MND. Please refer to responses to comments 1 through 13 in the
attached Utilities Department response to comments on the Master Plan.
Jr 0ATKINS CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-26 November 14, 2012
H-5.
cont.
H-6.
H-7.
H-8.
COMMENTS
In addition, the quality of the recycled water supplied from Gafner has consistently met
requirements of the contract with Carlsbad since the advanced treatment facmty 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 City'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.
4. "[T]he 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," Presuming these facts are true, they indicate a reduced demand for
recycled water, further questioning the logic of 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 Garner Plant
used as justification for its conclusion that abandoning the Gafner Plant is warranted. For
example, the Master Plan assumed that maximizing the Gainer Plant would require replacement
of 27,000 feet of secondary affluent return pipeline from the Encina Wastewater Authority
("EWA") Plant. This pipeline has significant remaining useful life and, therefore, replacement is
not needed. The Master Plan includes a cost lo expand the Gafner Plant with membrane
filtration and reverse osmosis which 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 dollars to maximize
use of the Gafner Planl (See Section 4.4.3)
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. 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 between LWD and Carlsbad never reached fruition, any conclusions in the
MND that rely upon the price of recycled water as a basis for pursuing abandonment of the
Gainer 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 forward into its program
EIR and ultimately into the Project MND that includes ESB. These assumptions prevented
accurate consideration of environmental impacts because they resulted in an erroneous Project
description, environmental setting and baseline
Biological and Wetland Impacts
The MND fails to disclose and discuss significant potential impacts to biological resources, particularly
those associated with wetland habitats due to, among other things, the following:
1. The Notice Of Completion Form fails to identify two waterways within two miles of the proposed
Project, including Batiquilos Lagoon, and Encinitas Creek. Segment ESB is within two miles of
H-6.
H-7.
H-8.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
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.
This comment introduces the comments that are addressed in responses to comments
H-14 through H-17. Refer to the responses to these comments.
This comment states that Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek are missing from the
Notice of Completion for the project and Figure 9 of the IS/MND. Due to the large
number of waterways in the project area, and limited space on the NOC form, only a
selection of waterways within two miles of the project components were listed on the
NOC. This form is intended to generally describe the project area; it does not need to
provide a comprehensive list of features. Waterways that are not listed on the NOC are
not precluded from analysis. All waterways that are potentially affected by the project
are fully analyzed in the IS/MND. However, in response to this comment, Figure 9 has
been updated to identify Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek.
~ ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND [EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-27 November 14, 2012
H-8.
cont.
H-9.
H-10.
H-11.
H-12.
COMMENTS
these waterways. In addition, Figure 9 does not identify San Marcos Creak, which crosses El
'Camino Real, and Encinitas 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 close proximity to ES8, 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 ES8 expansion site for reference. At the same time, the MND fails to
identify floodplains/flooding issues related to the South course of the La Costa golf course,
which is in the 100 year floodplain. The MND fails to disclose how the new ES8 pipeline to the
south golf course would impact 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 impact flooding. Furthermore, there is no information
provided to describe how ES8 construction would occur within the floodplain of San Marcos
Creek, where the pipeline leaves El Camino Real.
3. The MND erroneously states that the Project will occur within "public rights of way and
easements." However, the ES8 includes 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 impacts
because all Project activity will be within existing rights of way and easements is not supported
by evidence.
4. The MND fails to identify potential impacts to wetlands and riparian habitats that could result
from the installation of the ES8 pipeline extension. The MND indicates that trenchless methods
will be used to install the San Marcos Creek crossing in the south La Costa golf course for ES8.
(Construction Schedule and Methods, p. IS-16.) However, there is no discussion of the specific
method that would be used to cross the San Marcos Creek along El Camino Real, and Encinitas
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 Batiquttos 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 Encinitas Creek and the
potential for a Project to create direct significant impacts during construction 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 would be used for
the crossing of the San Marcos Creek in the South La Costa Golf Course. This is the not the
most cost effective or appropriate method for crossing a creek with a pressure pipeline.
Generally, Horizontal Directional Drilling methods are used. Without additional information,
there is no evidence in the record to support a finding tha1 no potentially significant
environmental impacts to biological resources and wetlands would occur. ·
Archeology Impacts
The MND fails to Identify the potential for the proposed trenchless construction to impact archeological
resources within the San Marcos Creek floodplain. Page IS-37 indicates that there is no potential for
impacts to archeological resources, because all construction would occur within public rights of way.
However, a portion of ES8 includes construction within the San Marcos Creek floodplain, and the "jack
H-9.
H-10.
H-11.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE Ill lS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that Maerkle Dam poses little threat to ES 8. This is consistent
with the I5/MND conclusion in Section 9j) that impacts related to inundation from
Maerkle Dam would be less than significant. This comment also states that the IS fails
to disclose how the ES8 pipeline would be constructed within the floodplain of San
Marcos Creek, or impacts to the San Marcos Creek floodplain. The I5/MND states on
page 15-17 under Construction Schedule and Methods that trenchless construction
would be utilized to cross San Marcos Creek. The I5/MND correctly concludes in
Section 9h) that the underground pipelines would not impede or redirect flows within
a 100-year flood hazard area. Two portions of ES 8 pipeline would be installed on the
sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real
and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. The
Construction Schedule and Methods discussion on page IS-17 has been revised to
clarify the description of the creek crossings. The proposed pipes would be attached
to the side of the bridges and would not result in any new interference with potential
flood waters. Section 9h) of the IS/MND has been revised to clarify that the bridge
crossing would not impede or redirect flood flows. The revisions to the analysis made
in response to this comment do not identify a new significant effect or mitigation and
do not constitute a substantial revision.
This comment states that the IS/MND does not disclose that a portion of ES 8 would
occur within the La Costa Resort, which is outside of the public right of way. The
description of ES 8 on page IS-8 under Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion
states that ES 8 would include an extension of pipelines across the South La Costa Golf
Course, which may be placed outside of the public right-of-way. The description of the
Project Location on page IS-1 referenced in this comment has been corrected to state
that a portion of the ES 8 would be located within the South La Costa Golf Course. The
statement on page IS-1 is not an impact statement and this revision does not affect the
environmental analysis of ES 8.
This comment states that the MND fails to identify potential impacts to wetland and
riparian habitats because there is no discussion of the specific method that would
be used to install the San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek crossing of ES 8. The
comment also states that no mitigation has been indentified for potential impacts.
As stated in the comment, the IS/MND describes construction of the San Marcos
Creek crossing on page 15-17. A trenchless construction method would be used and
the jack-and-bore method is given as an example. The description on page 15-17 has
been updated to provide directional drilling as another potential method that may be
used. Either method would avoid direct impacts to habitat within San Marcos Creek.
Installation of pipeline on the existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real
would also avoid potential direct impacts.
Encinitas Creek currently flows through a culvert under La Costa Avenue. Pipeline
under La Costa Avenue would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil
beneath the road surface and above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert
would not be directly affected by construction. ~ ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) November 14, 2012
Page RTC-28
COMMENTS
/\TKINS
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
In response to this comment, page IS-17 of the IS/MND has been updated as follows to
specifically describe construction in the Encinitas Creek area:
Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase Ill project would
utilize typical construction equipment including dozers, rollers, dewatering
pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation
project components would utilize open trenching or trenchless (directional
drilling or jack-and-bore) methods. Open trench pipeline construction would
require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the
diameter of the pipe and its depth. Trenchless recycled water pipeline project
components include crossing Palomar Airport Road along Avenida Encinas (ES
2), crossing the BNSF railroad tracks (ES 2), and crossing San Marcos Creek
in the South La Costa golf course (ES 8). Encinitas Creek currently flows
through a culvert under La Costa Avenue. Pipeline under La Costa Avenue
(ES 8) would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil beneath the
rood surface and above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert would
not be directly affected by construction. Two portions of ES 8 pipeline would
be installed on the sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San
Marcos Creek on El Camino Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa
Golf Course over an unnamed creek. Attaching the pipelines to the bridges
would not require ground-disturbing construction activity. The installation
of pipelines within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require a temporary
lane or roadway closure during construction activities. No grading would
be required for the proposed CWRF expansion because it would occur on the
existing building pads.
As discussed in Section 4c) of the IS checklist, the I5/MND concurs with the comment
that ES 8 is located within the immediate vicinity of wetland and riparian habitat.
Therefore, the 15/MND determined that potential indirect impacts to wetland and
riparian habitat would occur. As identified on pages 15-34 and 15-35, mitigation
measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF would be required to reduce impacts to a less than
significant level. Therefore, no revisions to the 15/MND are required in response to this
comment.
CMWD Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-29
November 14. 2012
H-12.
cont.
H-13.
H-14.
H-15.
COMMENTS
and bore" construction under San Marcos Creek has the potential to impact archeological resources.
The MND fails to identify and mitigate for archeological impacts.
Public Utility Impacts
The MND fails to acknowledge the impact of causing lhe abandonment of the Gafner Plant, a public
facility that is currently operational. The Gafner Plant is repeatedly described a.s. an lnactiv~ facility
creating the erroneous belief that the proposed abandonment 1s an existing condition. (See Figures 2
and 9, pages IS-5 and IS-14, respectively) The reality is that the proposed Project would res~tt. in
significant environmental effects to provide a utility service that is already being provided by an existing
facility. The MND has failed to analyze the potential impact that would result from the loss of recycled
water capacity if the Gafner Plant. is forced to be abandoned.
Demolition Impacts
The MND completely fails to address the potential impacts that would ~ assoclat~ with demolition
and replacement of the Gafner Plant ii ESS forces the shutdown of the fac1Uty . Demolition o! the Gafn~r
Plant could be a potential outcome of the project that would have the potential to cause s1grnficant air
quality, traffic and other environmental impacts, such as hazard waste ass?ciated with removal of the
materials. The MND completely fails to address the consequences of its unilateral attempt lo cause the
abandonment and demolition of the Gafner Plant.
Conclusion
LWD appreciates the CMWD's desire to expand its recycled water capacity for the region. _However,
LWD takes Issue with the CMWD's assumption that the Gafner Plant is no longer viable. and
assumption that ii makes sense from an environmental or public policy point of view to replace one
public facility with another. Surely, in today's environment whem public resources a~ scarce, there 1s
no justification for a public agency to expend public funds to dupbcale what Is already m exIslence. For
these reasons, LWD respectfully submits that the best course of action will be for the. CMWD to
abandon the ES8 segment of the Project. Otheiwise, if the CMWD wishes to_ pursue ESS. It. must fi~st
prepare an environmental impact report that (I) fully discloses pot~ntIal 1m.pacts __ assoc1a_ted with
construction of new, redundant facilities and the destruction of existing pubhc facIhty. (11) identifies
alternatives that could avoid significant impacts and (iii) identifies mitigation measures that could reduce
impacts to a level below significance.
cc: File
H-12.
H-13.
H-14.
H-15.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the IS/MND fails to disclose the potential for trenchless
construction to impact archaeological resources within the San Marcos Creek
floodplain. Section Sb) of the IS checklist has been revised to clarify that construction
would take place within existing roadways or the developed South La Costa Golf
Course. Similar to the existing roadways, resources within the previously disturbed
golf course would have been removed or destroyed by the previous construction.
This includes impacts from trenchless construction in San Marcos Creek because this
segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The entire South
La Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf course, including
the existing creek alignment. The revisions to the analysis made in response to this
comment do not identify a new significant effect or mitigation and do not constitute a
substantial revision.
This comment states that the IS/MND does not address the potential abandonment of
the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant and does not consider operation of the plant as an
existing condition. The Phase Ill project does not propose to abandon the Gafner WRF.
None of the Phase Ill project components would necessitate demolition or any other
physical change to the plant. It is unclear what environmental effects would be caused
by implementation of the project that are not disclosed of in the IS/MND, as stated
by the commenter. This IS/MND addresses the potential environmental impacts that
would occur as a result providing the utilities proposed in the Phase Ill project. Figures
2 and 9 have been corrected; however, the operation or inactivity of the Gafner plant
does not affect the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
This comment states that the IS/MND fails to discuss the potential impacts of
demolition and replacement of the Gafner WRF. The Phase Ill project does not
propose the demolition or replacement of the Gafner WRF. None of the Phase Ill
project components would necessitate demolition or any other physical change to the
plant. Therefore, no change to the IS/MND is required in response to this comment.
This comment concludes the letter and summarizes the comments that are specifically
addressed in responses to comment H-1 through H-14. Refer to the response to these
comments.
/\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-30
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-31
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
COMMENTS
~ ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND [EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-32
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14. 2012
ATTACHMENT A
City of Carlsbad Utilities Department Letter
dated November 8, 2012
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
/A.£,
"' "" C I T'I' 0 i ~ CARLSBAD
Utilities Department www .ca rlsbadca .gov
November 8, 2012
Paul Bushee, General Manager
Leucadia Wastewater District
1960 La Costa Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, (EIA 12-02)
Dear Mr. Bushee:
The Utilities Department is responding to your comment letter dated October 19, 2012 regarding the subject
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, EIA 12-02. The City's Planning
Department is responding with a separate letter to your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Measures. Your comments are restated below followed by our response.
Comment 1, Page No. 1, First Paragraph: "Unlike other elements of the Project that would expand recycled
water into areas not currently served, ES8 is designed to replace an existing public service."
1.
Response: Pipeline Segment ES8 will expand recycled water into areas that are currently not being
provided recycled water service from CMWD's recycled water distribution system. The pipeline ES8 will
be designed to extend the CMWD distribution system to the following irrigation use site locations:
• La Costa South Golf Course
• La Costa Hotel and Resort, which currently has a large grass landscaped entry, and other
landscaped areas surrounding the buildings and grounds that would be converted from potable
water to recycled water.
• Numerous irrigation meters located along El Camino Real, including street median and parkway
areas.
• Various homeowner associations which have maintenance responsibilities for community based
landscaping. Some sites have already been approved for recycled water use by the County and
CMWD, and therefore, the irrigation demand will be converted from potable water to recycled
water immediately once the pipeline is constructed.
• Olivenhain Municipal Water District {OMWD), which has submitted a letter indicating their
interest in the potential purchase of recycled water from CMWD for the purpose of supplying
OMWD's irrigation customers. OMWD staff has met with the City staff to review the Pipeline ES8
alignment and construction schedule. We are aware that OMWD has begun design work for the
expansion of their recycled water pipeline infrastructure in its northwest quadrant from a supply
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 Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA l 2-02)
Page RTC-33
November 14, 2012
2.
3.
4.
5.
Nov. 8, 2012
Page 2
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Comment 2, Page No. 1, Second Paragraph: "The effect of ES8 would be to terminate the Gafner Plant as the
dedicated source of recycled water to the south golf course and cause abandonment of the facility, which has
no other customer for recycled water."
Response: The effect of CMWD's ES8 pipeline within El Camino Real is not to terminate the Gafner Plant.
CMWD currently supplies recycled water to the La Costa North Golf Course via its pipeline connection
along Poinsettia Lane. CMWD also retails recycled water to the South Golf Course through the supply
connection from the Gafner Plant. The LWD does have options for sale of recycled water to other
agencies, and we have noted that State and Federal funding is being pursued by LWD for that purpose. In
addition, at meetings of the North County Recycled Water Group, LWD has made several comments that
they are in discussions with other agencies to deliver recycled water south of CMWD.
The ES8 pipeline has been sized to receive recycled water from the Gafner Plant as well, provided LWD
upgrades their existing effluent pump station at the Gafner Plant to provide the required flow rates and
water pressure for CMWD's use within its distribution pipeline system, and a new agreement for
purchase of recycled water is successfully negotiated between CMWD and LWD.
Comment 3, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "The MND fails to address the physical impacts associated with
shutting down the Gafner Plant and new impacts that would result from construction of duplicate
replacement facilities across a private resort, golf course and regional waterway."
Response: Shutting down the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase Ill
Recycled Water Project; and therefore, no discussion is required in the MND. The pipeline ES8 is also not
a duplicate supply, refer to response to Comment 1. The MND does provide detail, (Section 4 Biological
Resources), on impacts due to the construction of a new pipeline (ES8).
Comment 4, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "Instead, the MND erroneously concludes that the decision to
abandon the Gafner Plant has already been made and that construction of the new pipeline will not cause
any environmental impacts because it will occur within existing roadways."
Response: The project description in the MND is now modified to delete references to abandoning the
Gafner Plant and provide a more detail description of the alignment for Pipeline Segment ES8 (refer to
Response to Comment 2). With regard to Pipeline ES8, the MND does provide detail, (Section 4 Biological
Resources), of impacts due to the construction a new pipeline.
Comment 5, Page 1, Third Paragraph: "LWWD submits that construction of a new pipeline to duplicate the
services of an existing public facility is not a wise expenditure of public funds."
Response: Constructing Pipeline ES8 will not duplicate services provided to CMWD's irrigation customers,
refer to response to Comment 1. Pipeline ES8 is a wise investment of public funds as it will lower the
expenditure of public funds related to purchasing recycled water from the Gafner Plant. The effective
recycled water rate to CMWD from the Gafner Plant supply is approximately $2,000/AF, which is
significantly higher than the cost from other sources. Discussions with LWD indicate a potential
willingness to change the terms to reduce this unit cost, but the stated cost to date is still significantly
higher than CMWD's other sources. In addition, the existing Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility (CWRF)
in combination with Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) has sufficient capacity that can be
utilized to supply recycled water to the La Costa South Golf Course as well as the other use sites located
along the alignment of Pipeline ES8 at substantially lower cost and the recycled water has sufficient
pressure to be used in the golf course irrigation system without additional pumping by the golf course
operations. An economic analysis was performed to confirm that CMWD will be able to offset the
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-34
November 14, 2012
s.
cont.
6.
7.
8.
Nov.8,2012
Page 3
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
construction cost for Pipeline Segment ES8 within a few years based on the cost savings from utilizing the
other sources of recycled water available to CMWD, and the increased recycled water demand from
CMWD customer use sites along the alignment of pipeline ES8 will further assist in lowering cost to
CMWD's system through economy of scale.
Comment 6, Page 1, Third Paragraph: "if the CMWD wishes to pursue this course of action, it must first
prepare and environmental impact report ("EIR") that fully discloses and considers all environmental impacts
related to construction of new, redundant facilities and the resulting physical shut-down of an existing plant."
Response: CMWD has met all CEQA requirements by preparing a Project level Program Environmental
Impact Report for the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan that includes Pipeline Segment ES8 as well as a
draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase Ill recycled water project. Abandoning the existing
Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase Ill Project or the 2012 Recycled Water Master
Plan. The project description in the MND is modified to make this clear, refer to response to Comment 2.
Figure 9 in the MND is modified to show that the Gafner Plant is an existing facility.
Pipeline ES8 is not a redundant facility as noted in response to Comment 1. This pipeline could also
connect directly to the existing pipeline from the Gafner Plant to supply recycled water to CMWD's
distribution pipeline system.
Comment 7, Page No. 2 Project Description first paragraph: "The Project description of the ES8 segment does
not describe the ultimate purpose of the ES8 Project element, which is to replace and cause abandonment of
the Gafner Plant. Instead, the MND erroneously identifies the Gafner Plant as an inactive facility (See, e.g.,
Figure 9.)."
Response: Abandoning the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the proposed Phase Ill
Recycled Water Project. The ultimate purpose of expanding the recycled water distribution system is to
reduce CMWD's demand on the imported water supply, and provide a more reliable water supply to
irrigation customers through implementation of cost effective improvements. The project description in
the MND has been modified to make this clear, refer to response to Comment 2.
The purpose of pipeline ES8 is not to replace and cause abandonment for the Gafner Plant. The new
pipeline ES8 has been sized for additional recycled water deliveries to numerous user site locations along
its alignment, and to OMWD. In addition, it can be used to obtain recycled water from the Gafner Plant if
LWD upgrades the existing plant effluent pump station at the Gafner Plant, and a new or amended
agreement can be reached between CMWD and LWD on supplying recycled water from the Gafner Plant.
Figure 9 in the MND is now modified to show that the Gafner Plant is an existing facility.
Comment 8, Page 2, "CMWD staff has stated that the aging nature of the Gafner WRP has led to number of
operational issues. Gafner WRP has frequent start ups and downs that most likely exacerbate the operational
issues that CMWD currently pays to resolve."
Response: The City's Water Operations Staff monitors the use of both potable water and recycled water
used at the South Golf Course. There have been periods of time when a large increase in the potable
water use and decreased recycled water use has occurred as a result of the Gafner Plant operation not
being sufficient or timely to meet the demand at the South Golf Course. Reference is made to LWD's
letter to Steve Plyler of Water Operations, dated September 3, 2008, which states "operational issues
(adequate chlorine concentration time and turbidity) prevented the delivery of recycled water." These
operational issues persisted from March 14th through April 18th." Our intent was not to highlight actual
operational or water quality issues of the Gafner Plant which can be obtained from the Regional Water
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-35
November 14, 2012
8.
cont.
9.
10.
Nov.8,2012
Page 4
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Quality Control Board records, but rather, to indicate that the historic delivery to the La Costa South Golf
Course has encountered operational issues in the actual quantity and timely delivery of recycled water to
CMWD's customer as stated in a letter prepared by LWD.
The golf course staff has indicated that they do not take recycled water on a daily basis from the Gafner
Plant supply due to changes in the weather and available on site storage in their storage pond. LWD has
indicated that starting the Gafner Plant up and shutting it down with the short notice provided by the
South Golf Course operator does create operational issues. By implementing Pipeline ES8, the south golf
course flows would be accommodated by CMWD's other two supply sources and storage; and therefore,
would not require start up or shut down of treatment facilities based on the South Golf Course
fluctuating irrigation demands.
CMWD records indicate that LWD payments or credits to CMWD have been made to CMWD for
operational issues for the following years: 2008 -$13,763; 2009-$16,371; 2011 -$12,114.
Comment 9, Page 2: "The Gafner WRP is not optimally utilized since the south course demand is far less than
the minimum amount of recycled water that CMWD is required to purchase from LWWD. To further
compound the problem, the La Costa Resort & Spa further reduces recycled water demand to its south golf
course by blending Gafner RWP effluent with potable water to decrease TDS concentrations for irrigation on
golf course tees and putting greens."
Response: The La Costa South Golf Course operations staff currently utilizes recycled water from of the
Gafner Plant effluent. The grass grown on the tees and greens is a hybrid turf that is cut short creating
stress on the grass. The TDS concentration from the Recycled Water creates additional stress with
unsatisfactory conditions for use on the tees and greens. La Costa Operations staff recently upgrading its
golf course irrigation system on the North Golf Course so it can irrigate the tees and greens with potable
water separately from the fairways and other landscaped areas. La Costa Resort plans to upgrade the
South Golf Course in the near future including irrigating the tees and greens with potable water
separately from the fairways and other landscaped areas. Their irrigation system will be similar to the
newer golf courses in Carlsbad such as Aviara Golf Course, and the Crossings Golf Course, and result in a
more efficient use of recycled water and potable water. This change will lower their operating cost on
the South Golf Course. The changes being made will reduce the amount of recycled water being used on
the South Golf Course which is directly related to taking turf out. CMWD's recycled water policy
mandates recycled water use to the maximum practical and cost effective extent, but allows site owners
to choose specific use areas on their sites meeting all State requirements for appropriate use.
CMWD's Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility does have the ability to lower TDS through the use of its
reverse osmosis process as well. Carlsbad utilizes micro filtration with Reverse Osmosis which the Gafner
Plant does not currently incorporate.
Comment 10, Page 2: "The La Costa Resort & Spa in 2010 indicated that they are planning on significant
changes, which include reducing the amount of irrigated turf, and piping potable water to the greens and
tees. These changes will further reduce their irrigation demand on the recycled water supply."
Response: The changes being made by the La Costa Resort operations will actually result in a more
efficient use of available recycled water supplies, which is directly related to removing the amount of turf
out of irrigation. There is no incentive by CMWD to have its customers use more recycled water than
they require for their landscaping. We applaud any efficiency improvements made by our customers, and
will not discourage that practice. Efficiency improvements have been made by other CMWD customers
and are resulting in operational savings for CMWD with its recycled water distribution system.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-36
November 14, 2012
11.
12.
Nov. 8, 2012
Page 5
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Comment 11, Page 2: "The Master Plan assumed that max1m1Z1ng the Gafner Plant would require
replacement of 27,000 feet of secondary affluent pipeline from the Gafner Plant. The Master Plan includes a
cost to expand the Gafner Plant with membrane filtration and reverse osmosis which are not necessary to
meet current discharge requirements for the Gafner Plant. As a result of the false assumptions above and
others included in the Master Plan, it provides an inflated cost of several million dollars to maximize use of
the Gafner Plant."
Response: In accordance with LWD's Asset Management Plan, dated June 11, 2008 prepared by Dexter
Wilson Engineering, Inc., replacement funding was clearly noted for the secondary effluent pump station
and force main utilized in supplying secondary treated water to the Gafner Plant. The total replacement
amount listed in LWD's Asset Management Plan was $15,140,000 with approximately $6 million
identified to be required between the years 2011 through 2015.
If the Gafner Plant is expanded and used to serve new CMWD customers, more stringent regulations
from other groundwater basins will also apply such as iron, manganese, and TDS, which is presently not
addressed in the discharge order for the Gafner Plant. Water quality could therefore be a potential issue
when utilizing the Gafner Plant supply source within the CMWD recycled water distribution system which
needs to be considered. Planning level estimates were utilized for six supply alternative analyses in the
2012 RWMP. Alternative No. 3 consisting of maximizing the Gafner WRP was more than three times
more expensive than any other alternative available to CMWD's distribution system.
Comment 12, Page 2, "Most importantly, the Master Plan did not consider the alternative of continuing use
of the existing Gafner Plant facilities under a renegotiated agreement to continue a service that has been in
place for more than 50 years, an alternative that would not require any major capital investment."
Response: The Master Plan included six Recycled Water Supply Alternatives. Four of the alternatives
include the use of the Gafner Plant under an extension of the current agreement. These four alternatives
did not include any capital investment in the Gafner Plant; however, since the proposed Phase Ill
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.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-37
November 14, 2012
13.
Nov.8,2012
Page 6
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Comment 13, Page 2, "Any conclusions in the MND that rely upon the price of recycled water as a basis for
pursuing abandonment of the Gafner Plant are not supportable because the option of modifying the price
has never been pursued by CMWD."
Response: The MND is an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the Phase Ill 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
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND [EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-38
November 14, 2012
Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study
Case Number:
Project Title:
Lead Agency:
Contact Person:
Project Location:
EIA 12-02
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Barbara Kennedy (760) 602-4626
The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in the County of San
Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) service area (see Figure 1). A small portion
of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) is located in the City of Vista and a small portion (Expansion Segment 5) is
located in the City of Oceanside. The project will occur within public rights-of-way (ROW) and easements. with the
exception of a portion of ES 8 that would extend across La Costa Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual
components are shown in Figure 2. The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at
the existing CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, 92011. Expansion Segment lA (ES lA) is located
in existing roadways south of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, and along Camino Via Roble. Expansion
Segment 2 (ES 2) is located south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, along the Burlington Northern and
Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) railroad track and Avenida Encinas. Expansion Segment 4A (ES 4A) is located in South
Melrose Avenue in the City of Vista, just east of the boundary of Carlsbad and Vista. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5)
north and south of State Route 78 along the Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street.
Expansion Segment 7 (ES 7) is located south of State Route 78, west of College Avenue, and north east of Carlsbad
Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El Camino Real between Aviara and La Costa Avenue.
Expansion Segment 9 (ES 9) is located north of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, east of Highway 101, and
south of Poinsettia Avenue. Expansion Segment 18 (ES 18) is located southwest of Maerkle Reservoir along Palmer
Way and Impala Drive.
Project Applicant/Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
General Plan Designation:
Public ROW -Not Applicable
Public Utilities (U)
Zoning:
Public ROW -Not Applicable
Public Utility (P-U)
Brief Description of Project:
Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and
Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase Ill, would expand CMWD's recycled water system to
the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project
components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase Ill project would expand the treatment
capacity (from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility by installing additional filtration
units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or
construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-l
$op!ombor 19, 2Q12
November 14. 2012
ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -INITIAL STUDY
irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area
(see Figure 2).
Existing Land Use and Setting:
See Table 1. The Phase Ill project would be constructed within the CWRF, within existing aRd plaRRed 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 HFCs Hydrofl uoroca rbons
afy acre feet per year HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
BMP Best Management Practice HMP Habitat Management Plan
BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway HPMR Habitat Preservation and Management
CARB California Air Resources Board Requirements
CDF California Department of Forestry and MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Fire Protection MG million gallon
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
CDP Coastal Development Permit N2O Nitrous Oxide
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
CH4 Methane NO. Nitrogen oxides
CIPs Capital Improvement Projects OMWD Olivenhain Municipal Water District
CMP Congestion Management Program PFCs Perfl uoroca rbons
CMWD Carlsbad Municipal Water District PM10 Respirable particulate matter
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database PM2.s Fine particulate matter
CNPS California Native Plant Society RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
co Carbon Monoxide ROW right(s)-of-way
CO2 Carbon Dioxide RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
CWRF Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
DEH County of San Diego Department of SDAB San Diego Air Basin
Environmental Health SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
DOC Department of Conservation SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SIP State Implementation Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
ES Expansion Segment USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility VID Vista Irrigation District
FHWA Federal Highway Administration voe Volatile organic compounds
VWD Vallecitos Water District
l /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-2
!;oplombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
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, Oliven ha in Municipal Water District (OMWD), and Vista
Irrigation District (VID).
The CMWD has been providing recycled water to the city since 1991. The CMWD 2012 RWMP guides the continued
development of the CMWD recycled water system. Currently, CMWD's existing recycled water system extends to all
parts of the CMWD service area except the upper portion of the northwest quadrant and the portion of the
Vallecitos Water District (VWD) service area within the Carlsbad city limits. The proposed project is the
implementation of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) identified in the 2012 RWMP to expand recycled water
service to the northwest quadrant of the CMWD service area, and three water service providers including the City of
Oceanside, OMWD, and VID. The CIP projects addressed in this document will collectively be referred to as the
project.
Implementation of the 2012 RWMP is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase 111, and Build-
out. Phases I and II were previously implemented as part of a previous RWMP program. It is anticipated that an
additional 3,135 acre feet per year (afy), or 2.8 million gallons per day, of recycled water would be required to serve
demand at the completion of Phase Ill (Year 2020). The anticipated demand from inside the CMWD service area in
1,985 afy, and 1,150 afy would be needed by the neighboring agencies. The project would implement the Phase Ill
facility improvements to meet the additional demand.
Phase Ill includes the most feasible alignments for expansion of the recycled water system. This would expand
CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad, as well as fill in existing service areas, and begin initial
expansion into the neighboring agencies through wholesale service to VID for the Shadowridge Golf Course, OMWD
for irrigation use at schools and common areas in the Village Park area of Encinitas, and Oceanside at the El Camino
Country Club Golf Course, Ocean Hills Golf Course, and MiraCosta College. The Phase Ill project would be completed
between 2014 and 2020. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Phase Ill project
consists of the following facility improvements.
Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion
The CWRF is owned by CMWD; 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 aeanaening discontinuing
CMWD use of the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. The Phase Ill expansion of the CWRF would increase
capacity by installing additional filtration units and a chlorine contact basin within the existing facility, as shown on
Figure 3. The expansion would increase capacity by an additional 4.0 mgd, for a total capacity of 8.0 mgd, to meet
Phase Ill demand and replace the 0.6 mgd of discontinued capacity from the Gafner Water Reclamation Plant. The
CWRF already has approximately 14.4 mgd of pumping capacity and no additional pumps would be installed as part
of the project.
Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion
The Phase Ill project would include the installation of new pipelines, conversion of existing potable water facilities to
recycled water use, and· retrofitting landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water and provide supply to
proposed land development projects. The recycled water expansion segments that would require new pipeline are
described below. A total of be 96,600 linear feet of pipeline is proposed for the Phase Ill expansion segments.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-3
~eplember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
CMWD Service Boundary
City of Carlsbad
Source: ESRI, 2010; SanGIS, 2011
0
ATKINS
4
Miles
8 N
A
S.D. COUNTY
El Capitan
Reservoir
Love/and
Reservoir
S.D.COUNTY
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
Pacific Ocean
ource: aro a 2012
ATKINS
0 2,500 5,000
Feet
N
A
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
E!!) Developer
Expansion Projects
Adjacent to Existing Customers
Recycled Water Pipelines
Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
Developer
Expansion Segment - 1 A
Expansion Segment - 2
Expansion Segment -4A
Expansion Segment -5
Expansion Segment -7
Expansion Segment - 8
Expansion Segment - 9
Expansion Segment -18
Recycled Water Facilities
Other
Pump Station
Pressure Regulating Station
Meter
WRF
Tank
Reservoir
Leucadia WRF
LWWD Pump Station
Freeways
Major Roads
Local Streets
Water Body
Carlsbad City Limits
San Diego County
CMWD Boundary
PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT FACILITY LOCATIONS
FIGURE 2
CMWD PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PRQjECTS IS/MND
I ATKINS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-6
September 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
.j ATKINS \y --... --0 100 Feet 200 Phase Ill Chlorine Contact Basin Phase 111 Granular Media Filtration Unit CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY EXPANSION FIGURE 3 CMWO PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The future recycled water customers that would be added to the recycled water system as part of Phase Ill are
located adjacent to existing facilities and would require conversion or retrofitting of existing facilities. These
customers would not require any new pipeline to connect to the recycled water system.
Expansion Segment 1 consists of a total of 9,400 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a system demand of
99 afy. As shown in Figure 4, ES 1 is located in the center of CMWD's service area in Zone 550 and consists of
connecting customers in the business park surrounding Palomar Airport Road. ES 1 would be located within existing
roads and CMWD ROW.
Expansion Segment 2 consists of a total of 17,500 feet of 8-inch to 18-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate
system demand of 782 afy. This segment in Zone 384 would extend the recycled water system north from CWRF
along Avenida Encinas to the new power plant and across the lagoon, as shown in Figure 5.
Expansion Segment 4A would evaluate the potential of serving demands within the VID and provide wholesale
Service to VID at Shadowridge Water Reclamation Plant and the Ocean Hills Golf Course in Oceanside. No new
pipelines would be installed for this project component by CMWD. As shown in Figure 6, Expansion Area 4A would
make use of an existing 12-inch diameter pipeline in Melrose Avenue that would connect to an existing pipeline in
Faraday Avenue in the 660 Zone. Expansion Area 4A would serve the Shadowridge Golf Course, which has an
estimated demand of 300 afy, and the Ocean Hills Golf Course with a demand of 180 afy.
Expansion Segment 5 consists of 46,100 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand
of 454 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 384, extending the recycled water distribution system north along
El Camino Real to serve the second phase of the Robertson Ranch development, several existing homeowners
associations, and existing landscape irrigation. This segment also includes the El Camino Country Club within the city
of Oceanside with a demand of 180 afy. ES 5 would be located within existing roads in CMWD and City of Oceanside
ROW, as shown in Figure 7.
Expansion Segment 7 consists of 7,000 feet of 4-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of
114 afy. ES 7 would provide service to the proposed Quarry Creek development, a homeowners association, and
existing school landscape in Zone 580 and MiraCosta College in Oceanside. A pressure regulator would potentially be
required for this segment. However, if needed, this would be constructed on site as part of the Quarry Creek
development and paid for by the developer. Need for the pressure regulator would be determined as part of design
for the Quarry Creek development and considered in the environmental analysis for the Quarry Creek project.
Therefore, the pressure regulator is not considered part of the proposed Phase Ill project. As shown in Figure 8, the
anticipated alignment for ES 7 is along Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and
Carlsbad Village Drive.
Expansion Segment 8 consists of 9,900 feet of 6-inch to 12-inch diameter pipeline to serve La Costa Resort and Spa
and OMWD demands with an ultimate system demand of 420 afy. This includes 2,800 feet of pipeline to feed the
South La Costa golf course, which would connect Leucadia Wastewater District to the CMWD recycled water system.
CMWD could purchase or lease an existing pipeline directly from Leucadia Wastewater District to serve the South La
Costa golf course; however, this analysis assumes that a new pipeline will be built. This segment would be a part of
Zone 384. As shown in Figure 9, Expansion Segment 8 consists of a pipeline along El Camino Real that would connect
CMWD's recycled water system to OMWD and existing landscape irrigation at La Costa Resort and Spa. ES 8 would
be located within existing roads and CMWD ROW, with the exception of the pipeline to the South La Costa golf
course, which may be placed outside of the existing public ROW.
Expansion Segment 9 consists of 4,800 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of
91 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 318, expanding the recycled water system south to the San Pacifico
Homeowners Association and various existing landscape irrigation and potential development areas, as shown in
Figure 10. A portion of this alignment extends Zone 318 south along Avenida Encinas to the Poinsettia Village
shopping center and the Lake Shore Garden mobile home park.
Expansion Segment 18 consists of 1,900 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a Phase Ill system demand of
25 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 550, connecting several existing commercial irrigation demands north
of Faraday Avenue to the existing recycled water distribution system. ES 18 would be located within existing roads in
CMWD ROW, as shown in Figure 11.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-8
lioplombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
C116 •
C086 •
1A
8WEBIRD
ALEX-i . z
0 ;3!
Source: Carollo 2012
/\TKINS
18".
0 600
Feet
TOBRIA
1,200 N
A
COSS: -~ C084
12"
C073 -~
Expanston Sllgmel'1t 1A
Avg water usage • 99 afy
No of meters • 56
NO of costomers • 17
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
• Expansion Project 1A
e Adjacent to Existing
-Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
-Expansion Segment-1A
Carlsbad City Limits
EXPANSION SEGMENT 1A
FIGURE 4
Source: Carollo 2012
0 800
ATKINS
Feet
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon
1,600 N
A
C144
Expansion Segment 2
Avg water usage = 782 afy
No of meters = 18
No of customers = 13
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
• Expansion Project 2
• Adjacent to Existing
Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
Developer
-Expansion Segment -2
[Kl Pump Station
D,_ WRF
Water Body
Carlsbad City Limits
CMWD Boundary
EXPANSION SEGMENT 2
FIGURE 5
8"
8"
8"
8"
C090
Source: Carollo 2012
J w
0 M
ATKINS
0 900
Feet
1,aoo N
A
Expansion Segment 4A
Avg water usage • 300 afy
No of meter stations = 1
No of interconnections = 2
No of customers = 1
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
Expansion Project 4a
Adjacent to Existing
Other Expansion Projects
Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
Inactive WRF
Interconnection
Flow Control and Meter Station
Carlsbad City Limits
Vista
CMWD Boundary
Acre Feet Per Year
EXPANSION SEGMENT 4A
FIGURE 6
CMWD PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND
17
YOIJR€lL
~ Jc.,-& ~·
C02t"'" •-
\
Source: Carollo 2012
~ ATKINS
~
.,,,,,
.;Y' ,,,.
0 1,500
Feet
\
l •.
,,,,.,,.
\ &::'"'oONe~
i j
fllUSfOE J
3,000 N
A
\ I
" SUTTffi
--
<_ .. --
\-" ,\,,.,/
_,.-/
,;:~C126
51MSBURY •'\•~--■■-••-•-•.-,
lo:
8ROOKW000
C158 •
Calavera PS
Expansion Segment 5
Avg water usage = 454 afy
No of meters = 21
No of customers = 14
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
e Expansion Project 5
• Other Phase Ill Expansion Projects
Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
Developer
Expansion Segment - 5
Other Phase Ill Pipelines
Water Body
Carlsbad City Limits
Oceanside
c:::J CMWD Boundary
afy Acre Feet Per Year
EXPANSION SEGMENT 5
FIGURE 7
CMWD PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MN0
AVALON
BERKELEY
TIBURON
8UCKfNGHA
;~iai~.~
•' Source: Carollo 2012
0 ATKINS 570 1,140 N
Feet A
Expansion Segment 1 .
Avg water usage = 98 afy
No of meters• 11
No of customers = 3
\ Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
,;.,~ 00 (Customer ID)
--~<'. Expansion Project 7
' 11ioaD . «-:'!':'~G l 8 Other Phase Ill Expansion Projects
· LA ... tvc ,s,>o « -Existing Recycled Water Pipelines . "I . 0 .:::i ,s,l'~f--' 1 ----Developer ,;;;f? £01
· Expansion Segment - 7
Other Phase Ill Pipelines
Carlsbad City Limits
Oceanside
c::J CMWD Boundary
afy Acre Feet Per Year
EXPANSION SEGMENT 7
FIGURE 8
CMW0 PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND
---ff
: l ~
t.1½0
• C004
Source: Carollo 2012
0 550 1,100 N
ATKINS
Feet A
Expansicm Segment 8
Avg water usage • 420 afy
No of services • 2
No of Interconnections • 1
No of meter stations • 1
No of customers • 2
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
• Expansion Project 8
e Phase Ill LWWD to CMWD Deman
-Existing-Recycled Water Pipelines
Expansion Segment -8
.A, Leucadia WRF
• LWWD Pump Station
• Interconnection
■ Metering Station
Water Body
Carlsbad City Limits
Encinitas
EXPANSION SEGMENT 8
FIGURE 9
CMWD PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND
Source: Carollo 2012
0 600 1,200
/\TKINS
Feet
~ i
STERN
N
A
BEACON BAY ABELIA
12" 10" 12"
. ,?, . • '1,8,i, ;s>J.-., • ~ .,
,.
'¼-I\ ~
. Gu€'RiTE
flos€'MARY
DAISY
BEGONIA
Expansion Segment 9
Avg water usage = 91 afy
No of meters = 6
No of customers = 7
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
e Expansion Project 9
e Adjacent to Existing
Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
Developer
Expansion Segment - 9
Pressure Regulating Station
Water Body
Carlsbad City Limits
Encinitas
c::J CMWD Boundary
EXPANSION SEGMENT 9
FIGURE 10
CMWD PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND
\ ,
'C085 •
/
18
·~ = . <Dcoe1
Source: Carollo 2012
0 750
ATKINS
Feet
• C084C05
0 ('\/
12"
1,500 N
A
/
/
8''
Expansion Se9ment 18
Avg water usage • 25 afy
No ofmeters • 12
No of customers • 1
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
e Expansion Project 18
.,.yi,-""T~~;;.;.;.. _ _., __ a-t" C Other Phase 111 Expansion Project
12"
OJS.C.OVE.RY
~, INGLETON i
w
~. TOWN GARDEN
12"
I:! o. ~ ►·8''
AR\JNPEL ~ 5: . f?' D
e Adjacent to Existing
Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
-Expansion Segment-18
Other Phase Ill Pipelines
[]] Pump Station
Carlsbad City Limits
EXPANSION SEGMENT 18
FIGURE 11
CMWD PHASE 111 RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS 1S/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 Methods
The Phase Ill project would be completed between 2014 and 2020. Based on the 2012 RWMP, construction of the
CWRF expansion, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would begin as early as 2014. ES 1 and ES 2 would begin
construction as early as 2015. ES 4A would also be completed in 2015, but would not require any heavy construction
activities. The CWRF expansion and Twin D tank construction or relocation would each take approximately 18
months to complete. Pipelines would be installed at a rate of 80 feet to 100 feet per day; therefore, pipeline project
components would take between two months (ES 9) and 29 months (ES 5) to complete.
Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase Ill project would utilize typical construction equipment
including dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation project
components would utilize open trenching or trench less (directional drilling or jack-and-bore) methods. Open trench
pipeline construction would require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the diameter of
the pipe and its depth. Trench less recycled water pipeline project components include crossing Palomar Airport
Road along Avenida Encinas (ES 2), crossing the BNSF railroad tracks (ES 2), and crossing San Marcos Creek in the
South La Costa golf course (ES 8). Encinitas Creek currently flows through a culvert under La Costa Avenue. Pipeline
under La Costa Avenue (ES 8) would be installed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil beneath the road surface and
above the culvert using an open trench. The culvert would not be directly affected by construction. Two portions of
ES 8 pipeline would be installed on the sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El
Camino Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. Attaching the
pipelines to the bridges would not require ground-disturbing construction activity. The installation of pipelines
within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require a temporary lane or roadway closure during construction
activities. No grading would be required for the proposed CWRF expansion because it would occur on the existing
building pads.
Permits Required
The approval of the Phase Ill project requires the affirmative vote of the CMWD Board of Directors. However,
implementation of the individual facilities that comprise the proposed project may require that the CMWD obtain
approval, permits, licenses, certifications or other entitlements from various federal, state, and local agencies, as
shown in Table 1 in Appendix A.
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The environmental setting and land uses surrounding each of the project components are provided in Table 1.
Regulatory Compliance
Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to various
environmental topics. Applicable regulations are listed in Appendix A.
Project Design and Construction Measures
The CMWD has incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design
that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The project design features and
construction measures are provided in Appendix A.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-17
Soplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
~ ATKINS ...£. 0 75 Feet N A PROPOSED STORAGE TANK LOCATION FIGURE 12 CMWD PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS IS/MND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Table 1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Project
Component Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Carlsbad Water The expansion would be located within the existing CWRF facility. The proposed chlorine contact basin and
Recycling granular media filtration equipment would be located within a new concrete structure. The two concrete
tanks that contain the treatment system would be surrounded by other CWRF facilities to the south, east, and Facility west, and the EWPCF to the north. Existing vegetation within the CWRF facility site surrounding the structures Expansion consists of non-native and/or ornamental species.
Expansion 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 Segment 1 existing business park including office and light industrial development.
Pipelines would be located within the BNSF railroad ROW and the following existing roadways: Cannon Road,
Expansion Avenida Encinas, Palomar Airport Road, and Oceanview Drive. Land uses along the rail corridor include the
new power plant. Land uses along Avenida Encinas include power plant infrastructure, hotels, office and Segment 2 industrial parks, open space, the railroad track, and the CWRF. Land uses along Palomar Airport Road include
open space and a hotel. Land uses along Oceanview Drive include mobile home residences.
Expansion The existing pipeline is located within South Melrose Drive in the city of Vista. Land uses along this roadway
include open space, industrial parks, commercial land use, single-family residences, and the Shadowridge Segment 4A Country Club and golf course.
Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Vista Way, Haymar Drive, El Camino Real,
Marron Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, Pointe Avenue, Tamarack Avenue, Palisades Drive, High Ridge Drive,
Telescope Avenue, Pontiac Drive, Regent Road, Southampton Road, Chancery Court, Chelsea Court, Salisbury
Court, Dorchester Place, Carnaby Court, Buckingham Lane, Kelly Drive, and Park Drive. Land uses along Vista
Way include hotels and visitor serving commercial uses, El Camino Country Club and golf course, and medical
offices. Land uses along Haymar Drive include open space, a driving range, and commercial land uses. Land
uses along El Camino Real include commercial and entertainment land uses, multi-family and single-family
Expansion residences, medical offices, and open space. Land uses along Marron Road include commercial land use, multi-
family residences, Westfield Plaza mall, and open space. Land uses along Carlsbad Village Drive include multi-Segment 5 family and single-family residences. Pointe Avenue and Palisades Drive are located in a single family residential
neighborhood north of Tamarack Avenue. Land uses along Tamarack Avenue include open space and single-
family residences. High Ridge Drive and Telescope Avenue are located in a single-family residential
development south of Tamarack Avenue, and Regent Road, Southampton Road, Chancery Court, Chelsea
Court, Salisbury Court, Dorchester Place, Carnaby Court, and Buckingham Lane are located in a single-family
residential neighborhood east of El Camino Real. Land uses along Kelly Drive include single-family residences,
open space, Kelly Elementary School, and Laguna Riviera City Park. Land uses along Park Drive include open
space and Laguna Riviera City Park.
Expansion Pipeline would be installed within the following existing roadways within a single-family residential
neighborhood: Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Segment 7 Drive.
Portions of ES 8 would be installed within the following existing roadways: La Costa Avenue and El Camino
Expansion Real. Land uses along these roadways include open space, commercial development, single-family and multi-
family residential development, and the La Costa Resort and golf course. The remaining portion of the Segment 8 expansion segment would traverse La Costa golf course property from El Camino Real to the existing golf
course lake.
Pipeline would be installed in several existing roadways: Avenida Encinas, Ponto Drive, and Navigator Circle.
Expansion Land uses along Avenida Encinas include the Lake Shore Garden mobile home residential neighborhood and
Segment 9 the Poinsettia Village commercial development. Open space is located on either side of Ponto Drive.
Navigator Circle is located in a single-family residential neighborhood.
Expansion Pipeline would be installed in the existing Palmer Way and Impala Drive roadway ROW. These roadways are
Segment 18 located in an existing business park including office and light industrial uses.
The new or relocated steel tank would be located on a currently graded site that contains two existing steel
1.5 MG Steel tanks for recycled water storage. The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline at the site. Existing
Tank vegetation adjacent to the steel tank site consists of non-native and/or ornamental species. The storage tank
site is surrounded by single-family residential development.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-19
~oplombor 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.
D Aesthetics
~ Biological Resources
D Greenhouse Gas Emissions
D Land Use/Planning
D Population/Housing
D Transportation/Traffic
Determination
D Agriculture/Forestry Resources
D Cultural Resources
~ Hazards & Hazardous Materials
D Mineral Resources
D Public Services
D Utilities/Service Systems
D Air Quality
D Geology/Soils
D Hydrology/Water Quality
D Noise
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
[gl 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental
Impact Report is required.
D 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.
0 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.
City Planner Signature
I ATKINS
w4q ~I'S/ l}.Of1-
Date
~!3/20/Z
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-20
~oplombor Vi'. 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-lnitial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document
have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required.
■ When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the
significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
■ A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of
its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
■ If there is one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there is
mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures
are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
■ An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that
reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the
significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do
not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-lnitial Study analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of
a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-21
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions.
Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined
significant. As discussed above in the Project Description, several potential customers located adjacent to existing
recycled water facilities would be connected to the recycled water system. No physical environmental changes
would occur as a result of these connections; therefore, they are not included in the analysis below.
This document incorporates by reference the analysis contained in the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer
Master Plan and CMWD Water and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006) (2012
Master Plans EIR), which was released for public review in July 2012. The 2012 Master Plans EIR addresses the
potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plan CIP Projects, including the CWRF expansion and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 4A, S, 7, 8, 9,
and 18. This Initial Study also uses the information included in the previous Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
prepared for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase II Project in December, 1999, which included
construction of the CWRF. Each of these prior certified environmental documents is herein incorporated by
reference. This EIA contains information summarized from these prior documents to facilitate the reader's review of
this document where appropriate. All referenced documents are available for review at the City of Carlsbad, 1635
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
The proposed ES 4A consists of using an existing pipeline to provide recycled water service to the Shadowridge golf
course. No new pipeline would be installed as part of this project component and no other construction activities
would be required. The 2012 Master Plans EIR assumed that 700 feet of pipeline would be installed as part of
ES 4A, but determined that installation would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts that
would require mitigation. ES 4A as proposed would not result in any physical environmental effects because no
construction would be required; therefore, consistent with the determination of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, ES 4A
would not result in any physical environmental impacts and is not included in the EIA below. The potential
environmental impacts of the CWRF expansion and Expansion Segments 1, 2, S, 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? □ □ 0 □
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings □ □ 0 □ within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or □ □ 0 □ quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which □ □ 0 □ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Explanation:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed expansion segments are below-ground installations, and the CWRF
expansion consists of interior improvements to an existing facility. Following construction, the project would have
no visual impact. The CWRF expansion and construction or relocation of the tank at the Twin D tank site would not
result in temporary construction impacts because the construction area would be within the CMWD property,
isolated from public view. However, temporary visual impacts would occur from construction of the expansion
segments due to unsightly trenching and stockpiling in public roadways, and presence of heavy construction
equipment. Disturbance of ground cover, excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-22
September 19, 2012
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 Ill project during construction activities, including
removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing setting, and restoring disturbed areas following
construction. Therefore, visual impacts would be minimized during construction activities and disturbed areas would ·
be re-vegetated or repaved to ensure that all disturbed areas of the construction site return to pre-existing visual
character conditions after completion of construction. Temporary construction impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no designated State Scenic highways in the project study area. However,
Interstate 5 is an eligible State Scenic highway and Carlsbad has its own scenic roadways program. Scenic roadways
listed in the Carlsbad General Plan in the proximity of the project include El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, La
Costa Avenue, Melrose Drive, College Boulevard, Cannon Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, Faraday Avenue, Interstate 5,
and Poinsettia Lane. The BNSF railroad line is also considered a scenic corridor. However, as discussed above under
question la), the proposed project would not result in any permanent visual impacts. Impacts would be less than
significant.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above under question la), the proposed project would not result in any
permanent visual impacts. Impacts related to existing visual character and quality would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed expansion segments are below-ground installations. The CWRF
expansion consists of a concrete structure, and the new steel storage tanks would be located on the same site as
two existing steel tanks. Similar to the existing tanks, the new tank would be painted with low-glare coatings so that
reflection is kept to a minimum. No new lighting or potential sources of glare are proposed. Construction would be
limited to daytime hours and would not require construction lighting. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Less Than Less Than Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant With Significant
Mitigation Impact No Impact
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
□
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-23
□ □
SoptoFnbor 19, 2Ql 2
November 14, 2012
. I
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 4526)?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Explanation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
Less Than Less Than
Significant With Significant
Mitigation Impact No Impact
□ □ [gJ
□ □
□ □
□ □
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. There are only a limited number of areas within Carlsbad that include important farmlands as defined by
the California Department of Conservation. Carlsbad consists mainly of Urban and Built-Up Land along the western,
southern, and northwestern portions of the city, with large areas of "Other Land" interspersed throughout the
eastern and central portions (Dudek 2003). "Other Land" consists of land not included in any other mapping
category. Common examples include low density rural developments and brush or sensitive habitat areas not
suitable for agriculture. One small Williamson Act contract area is located within Carlsbad, east of Interstate 5 at
Palomar Airport Road (DOC 2009) and it not located in the vicinity of any project component. No agricultural uses
occur within the areas of the VID or Oceanside Water District adjacent to the proposed recycled water infrastructure
alignments in these jurisdictions (City of Vista 2011 and DOC 2008). The CWRF expansion and new storage tank
consist of improvements to existing facilities and would not result in any conversion of agricultural land to non-
agricultural use. The proposed pipelines would be located within existing roadways or developed areas and would
not affect any existing agricultural operations or preclude future agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. See response to question 2a). No impact to agricultural land would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)?
No Impact. The CMWD recycled water service area does not include any forest land or timberland zoned for
timberland production (CDF 2003). No forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production occurs within the
areas of the VID or Oceanside Water District where recycled water infrastructure alignments would be extended. No
impact to forest land or timberland would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. See response to question 2c). No impact to forest land would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. See response to questions 2a) and 2c). No impact to agricultural land or forest land would occur.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-24
Soplombor 19, 2Gl2
November 14. 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Explanation:
□
□
□
□
□
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less than significant. The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The San Diego Air Pollution
Control District (SDAPCD) is the local agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of air quality
regulations for the SDAB. The most current air quality planning document for the SDAPCD and thus the applicable
air quality plan to the Phase Ill 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 (SAN DAG), 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, SAN DAG 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 Ill project would implement CIP projects identified in the 2012 RWMP to meet future demand. These
projects would not generate any additional population and no unplanned growth would be served by the projects.
The proposed facilities are community service facilities, providing the infrastructure necessary to support planned
population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in population growth that would exceed the
population projections accounted for in the RAQS and SIP. Implementation of the Phase Ill 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
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-25
Soptombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
level thresholds can be used to demonstrate whether a project's total emissions would result in a significant impact
to regional air quality.
Construction of the project would result in temporary increases in air pollutant emissions generated primarily from
construction equipment exhaust, earth disturbance, construction worker vehicle trips, and heavy duty truck trips.
The 2012 Master Plans EIR quantified the worst-case construction emissions that would result from simultaneous
implementation of the three master plans. The worst-case construction scenario included installation of 124,414
feet of pipeline (including approximately 63,480 linear feet for ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18), pump and lift station
removals and replacements, removal and relocation of a storage tank at the Twin D site, access road installations,
and the CWRF expansion project.
The worst-case analysis assumed that all projects would be constructed simultaneously and completed in seven
months. It was assumed that 890 linear feet of pipeline would be installed per day for all three Master Plan CIP
Programs. The 2012 Master Plans EIR included the worst-case construction scenario for the Phase Ill project that ES
5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, placement of a new tank at the Twin D site, and the CWRF expansion would all be under
construction in 2014. Construction of the Phase Ill RWMP pipeline projects were assumed to be installed at a rate of
80 feet to 100 feet per day. In reality, the project components would not all be constructed in 2014. The Phase Ill
project would be installed at a slower pace and over a longer period of time compared to the 2012 Master Plans EIR
assumptions, and would therefore result in reduced maximum daily emissions compared to the EIR assumptions.
The maximum daily emissions associated with the worst-case construction scenario are provided in Table 2. As
shown in Table 2, implementation of the Sewer, Water, and Recycled Master Plans simultaneously, including the
worst-case construction scenario for the Phase Ill project, would result in less than significant emissions of criteria
air pollutants during construction of the proposed CIP projects. The Phase Ill project would also implement the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Appendix A to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant
emissions during construction of Phase Ill project, including covering or applying soil stabilizer to unpaved surfaced,
restoring disturbed areas when construction is complete, using alternative sources of power when feasible, installing
air filters on construction engines, implementing a traffic control plan, locating staging areas away from residences,
and limiting truck idling. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant air pollutant emissions during
construction.
Table 2 Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction
Maximum Daily Emissions, pounds per day
Emission Source voe NO, co so. PM1013l PM2.s (3)
Total Worst-Case Construction Scenario Emissions 17 94 63 0 66 18
Significance Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Significant Impact? I No No No No No No
Includes hauling of imported and exported trench material (1)
(2) Architectural coasting emissions assume that all architectural coatings would be low-VOC coatings. Based on estimated
interior and exterior surface area for each new reservoir, pump station, and lift station. Worker vehicle trips were
estimated by URBEMIS 2007.
131 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; NO,= Nitrogen oxides; CO= carbon monoxide; SO,= Sulfur Oxides; PM10 = Respirable
particulate matter; PM2_5 = Fine particulate matter
Source: URBEMIS 2007.
Following construction, the new pipelines would be passive and the CWRF expansion would not require any
equipment that would generate the criteria air pollutants, listed in Table 2. The underground pipelines would not
require regular maintenance. No additional maintenance trips would be required to the CWRF as a result of the
proposed expansion. Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips and not
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-26
Soplombor 19, 2012
Novembec 14, 2012 q ';}--'
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, PM 10, and PM25• The County has not met the federal
and/or state standards for these pollutants; therefore, significant cumulative impacts to air quality for VOCs (ozone
precursor), NOx (ozone precursor), PM 10, and PM2_5 currently exist. The greatest concern involving criteria air
pollutants is whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10 and PM2_5, or exceed
screening level thresholds of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOx), As discussed in Section 3 bl, the project would not
generate operational air pollutant emissions; therefore, only the potential cumulative impacts associated with
construction-related air pollutant emissions are evaluated below.
The County of San Diego's Guidelines for Determining Significance provide guidance for assessing the impact of
cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants. According to these guidelines, a project would result in a cumulative
impact if the proposed project, alone or in combination with the construction of another cumulative project, would
exceed the significance thresholds listed in Table 2 during construction.
A localized pollutant concentration analysis is appropriate to the determination of the cumulative impacts of
construction emissions because pollutant emissions would disperse or settle out following construction and would
not contribute to long-term concentrations of emissions in the San Diego Basin. The geographic scope of the
cumulative analysis for the proposed project is area served by the CMWD, including the CMWD service area and
portions of the VID and Oceanside services areas where recycled water service would be extended. As shown in
Table 2, the worst-case simultaneous construction of the CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plans, including the worst-case construction of the Phase Ill project, would not exceed the
significance thresholds. The 2012 Master Plans EIR concluded that construction would not result in significant
cumulative impact because cumulative construction projects would not take place at the same time or in the same
location, and relatively short construction periods are anticipated for CIP projects. The proposed project
construction would be consistent with the construction assumptions in the 2012 Master Plans EIR. Therefore,
consistent with the conclusion of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in
a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact during construction.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than significant. None of the departments within the CMWD are listed within the 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots"
Program Report for San Diego County as an organization posing possible health risks to San Diego County with
regards to TACs. The proposed Phase Ill facilities are similar to existing pipelines, storage tanks, and CWRF
facilities and would not result in a new source of TACs. As discussed under question 3b), the proposed Phase Ill
project would not result in a substantial net increase in vehicle trips, and would not contribute to severe traffic
congestion issues with the potential to create carbon monoxide "hotspots" (defined as areas where high
concentrations of carbon monoxide result from idling vehicles). Additionally, construction of the Phase Ill project
would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations, including diesel exhaust from construction equipment.
Therefore, while sensitive receptors (e.g., medical facilities and residences) exist along some Phase Ill pipelines,
construction activity would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would
be less than significant.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant. CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of
odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-27
Soplombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
q;J
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 Ill
project would be operating at various locations throughout the project area and would not take place all at once.
Odorous hydrocarbons emissions would dissipate beyond the emission sources and would only temporarily affect
receptors in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Construction-related operations would also be
temporary in nature and would cease at the completion of the installations. Therefore, odor impacts associated
with construction would be less than significant. ·
Based on CAR B's list of common sources of odor complaints, recycled water projects do not typically result in a
source of nuisance odors associated with operation. The pipelines would be located underground and would
transport potable water. The storage tank would enclose potable water. The CWRF would continue to filter and
disinfects secondary treated wastewater, rather than raw sewage, and the proposed expansion would not result in
substantial odor impacts compared to existing conditions. Chemicals proposed for use in the treatment process
would be in enclosed containers and would not be vented to the atmosphere. Therefore, operation of the project
would not result in a significant odor impact.
less Than less Than Potentially
Significant
Impact
Significant With Significant
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?
□
□
□
□
□
□
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-28
Mitigation Impact No Impact
□
□
□
□ □
□ □
□ □
□
□
□
:;eptember 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 special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation. Information regarding biological resources that occur or have the potential to
occur within the project sites and immediate vicinity was obtained from a search of biological resources databases
and a review of pertinent literature, prior environmental documents, photographs, and aerial imagery. Due to the
fact that the project sites are restricted to existing disturbed and developed land, no site-specific biological surveys
were required to be conducted in support of the biological resources analysis. A summarized list of the primary
resources consulted for the preparation of the analysis is provided below under the Biological Resource Database
and Literature Review heading. The biological resources analysis included a thorough review of literature and
geospatial data pertaining to biological resources, including the California Natural Diversity Database, California
Native Plant Society Inventory, 2012 Master Plans EIR, and Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) mapping data,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper, photographs, and aerial
imagery.
The Phase Ill project components have been specifically designed to be restricted entirely within existing disturbed
and developed road and utility ROW, access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing
transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. ES 8 would cross the San Marcos Creek within the
South La Costa Golf Course; however, this segment of San Marcos Creek is not the natural creek alignment. The
entire South La Costa Golf Course was previously disturbed to create the golf 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 Ill project sites (Appendix B). None of the 54 special-status plant species have been reported as occupying
habitat specifically located within the project sites themselves. All of the project sites lack suitable habitat for
special-status plant species and are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW or disturbed bare earth
associated with access roads or previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of
non-native ruderal (weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. No special-status plant species would be
expected to occur within the any of the project sites given the high level of disturbance and overall unsuitability of
the existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to any
special-status plant species as a result of the project.
Special-Status Wildlife Species. In total, 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported at locations in the
vicinity of the project sites (Appendix B). None of the 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported as
occupying habitat specifically located within the project sites themselves. Similar to that found for special-status
plant species, the project sites lack suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species given the prevalence of paved
asphalt in existing ROW, disturbed bare earth in access roads, and previously graded conditions. There are a number
of disturbance factors associated•with the sites that would preclude most special-status wildlife species from using
the area as temporary or permanent habitat. These factors include the presence of existing developments; exposure
to regular disturbances, including lighting, noise, vehicle, and pedestrian activity; regional isolation and lack of direct
connectivity or reasonable proximity to larger, better quality habitat; and, overall poor quality or lack of resources
with respect to providing nesting, foraging, dispersal, refuge or other habitat elements important to species life
history requirements.
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-29
:;eplember 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Most of the areas surrounding the Phase Ill sites are regularly used by vehicles and pedestrians, which present
ongoing adverse direct and indirect effects associated with regular roadway use, encroachment into undeveloped
areas, nighttime lighting, and high noise levels. These ongoing effects degrade the existing habitat and deter special-
status wildlife species from using the area. In addition, most of the sites are constrained in all directions by existing
developments, thereby reducing the likelihood for special-status wildlife species to disperse or migrate over the sites
and immediate vicinity. The relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in proximity to some of the
sites has been reduced to small, fragmented, and low-quality stands, which are disconnected and isolated from
habitat in the local and regional area. Most of these off-site stands do not offer the space and resources required by
most of the special-status wildlife species.
Given these factors, special-status wildlife species would not be expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of
most of the project sites. However, several of the project components contain small segments that occur
immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could support special-status wildlife
species. These components include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9. Although no direct impacts to special-status
wildlife species would be expected, potential indirect impacts could occur to special-status wildlife species during
project construction. The Phase Ill project components with segments that occur adjacent to undeveloped areas are
depicted within Figure 13 and listed below within Table 3, along with a discussion of the potential in-direct impact.
Table 3
Project
Component
Expansion
Segment 1
Expansion
Segment 2
Expansion
Segment 5
Expansion
Segment 8
Expansion
Segment 9
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts
(Only) to Special Status Species
Rationale for Determination
Expansion Segment 1 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of
this project component within West Oaks Way and Palomar Oaks Way'will occur immediately adjacent to
undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands.
All construction activities would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be
directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project
construction would coincide with the breeding season.
Expansion Segment 2 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within disturbed and developed areas.
Portions of this project component near Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Encinas Power Station, and near Avenida
Encinas and the CWRF facility will occur adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife
species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction activities would be restricted to existing
disturbed and developed areas, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect
noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction would coincide with the
breeding season.
Expansion Segment 5 would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of
this project component that would be installed along Haymar Drive, Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive,
Pontiac Drive, Park Drive, and Palmer Way are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status
wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, as shown in Figure 13. All construction activities
would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed.
Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides
with the breeding season.
Expansion Segment 8 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of
this project component near El Camino Real and the La Costa Resort and Spa are adjacent to undeveloped areas
that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction
activities would be restricted to existing developed roads and the developed South La Costa Golf Course.
Trenchless construction would be used to cross San Marcos Creek within the golf course . .,afla-fl t!o trees, shrubs, or
habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird
species if project construction coincides with the breeding season.
Expansion Segment 9 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within disturbed areas. Portions of
this project component near Ponto Drive are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status
wildlife species and sensitive natural communities. All construction activities would be restricted to existing
disturbed land, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts
could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-30
3eptember 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
ES-5 at Haymar Drive
ES-2 at Avenida
Encinas & CWRF
Source: ESRI, 2010; SanGIS, 2011
0
/\TKINS Miles
2 N
Q
ES-5 at Park Dr &
Laguna Riviera Park
ES-5 at Tamarack Ave &
Carlsbad Village Drive
ES-5 at
Palmer Way
1
512 j
ES-1 at Palomar
arA;~o ~__,,,..__o_a_ks_W_a_y __ __,
ES-8 at La Costa
Resort and Spa
A PHASE Ill INDIRECT BIOLOGY IMPACTS
FIGURE 13
c,wo '""'" m sec,,oc,o wAm ""°'""" ''''"~ 7
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potential indirect impacts to special-status species and their habitat from construction of the project components
listed within Table 3 could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration, as discussed
further below. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction; however, the CMWD has committed to
daytime construction hours and construction of the project would not require the use of nighttime lighting.
Therefore, no indirect impacts resulting from nighttime lighting would occur. In addition, as described in Section 9,
potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas
would be controlled and reduced through implementation of the project features listed in Appendix A, including a
Storm Water General Permit, General Linear Utility Permit, and compliance with local development standards,
including the preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and application of appropriate BMPs.
Therefore, potential indirect impacts associated with runoff and pollutants into off-site undeveloped areas would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
Project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 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 {l=eeruary !January 15 through September 15August 31) and/or raptor
nesting season (January 15 through July 31), which could potentially result in impacts to nesting birds and raptors in
violation of the MBTA and CDFG Code. Indirect impacts could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in
the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest, such that the disturbance results in nest
abandonment or nest failure. This represents a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of
Mitigation Measure Bio-lA below would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
Construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of construction
equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may support special status-
species. These activities could result in a potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation
Measures Bio-1B through Bio-lF below would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation. In total, 17 sensitive natural communities have been reported at locations in
the vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites (Appendix B). None of the 17 communities are located within the footprints
of the individual project components. As discussed in Section 4 a), all of the project sites are characterized by paved
asphalt within existing road ROW. a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or
previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and
ornamental landscape plant species. Therefore, sensitive natural communities are considered to be absent from the
project sites and no direct impacts would occur.
As discussed in Section 4 a), the project components listed within Table 3 would be constructed in the immediate
vicinity of undeveloped areas. These undeveloped areas could support sensitive natural communities. Construction
activities associated with project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 could result in potential runoff and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to
construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would
be considered significant. As discussed in Section 9, potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants
generated from construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with the proposed project features and compliance with applicable regulations
listed in Appendix A. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B through Bio-lF would prevent
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this
impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality
standards discussed in Section 9 and implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18 through Bio-lF.
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-32
~0pl0mb0r 19, 2012
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 of the Phase Ill project sites are characterized by paved asphalt within
existing road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously
graded areas. No portions of the project sites occur within federally protected wetlands or other sensitive water and
wetland resources subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFG. Therefore, federally protected wetlands and other jurisdictional water and
wetland resources are considered to be absent from the project sites and no direct impacts would occur.
As discussed in Section 4 a), the project components listed within Table 3 would be constructed in the immediate
vicinity of undeveloped areas. Of these project components, portions of ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, and ES 8 are located within
upland areas that occur in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas potentially supporting wetlands.
Construction activities associated with these project components could result in potential runoff and inadvertent
intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive wetland areas adjacent to upland construction
zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or fill-related impacts and would be considered
significant. Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities
would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the project features and
compliance with the regulations listed in Appendix A. Inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and
personnel into off-site wetlands would be prevented through the implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-lB
through Bio-lF and would mitigate potential indirect impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, potential
indirect impacts to federally protected wetlands and other jurisdictional resources would be reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards discussed in Section 9 and
implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B through Bio-lF.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant. As discussed above within Section 4 a), the biological resources analysis included a thorough
review of information pertaining to the Carlsbad HMP and Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), including
regional corridors and habitat linkages. No known wildlife corridors, linkages, or nursery sites occur within or in the
immediate vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites. All of the sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing
road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas.
The sites do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of any local or regional
wildlife corridors or linkages. No suitable habitat exists that would support a nursery site. Construction and
operation of the project would not be expected to adversely affect the wildlife movement functions and values of
existing habitat in the immediate vicinity of project sites. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resldent or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Less than significant. None of the proposed project components that occur within the boundaries of the coastal
zone would impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area or other protected resources, as identified within the
approved Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; therefore, the project would not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant.
Projects located within Carlsbad are subject to the requirements of the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, including the Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (HPMR) Ordinance. The HPMR
requires all development to comply with the Carlsbad HMP as well as the Implementing Agreement, the MHCP, the
Natural Communities Conservation Plan and lO(a)(l)(B) permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be
permitted to occur until all processing and permitting requirements of the HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled. As
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-33
:iioplombor 19, 2012
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 Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than significant. As evaluated above in Section 4 a), Section 4 b), and Section 4 e), several project components
could result in potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP. The
CMWD is required to comply with the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the
HPMR Ordinance. Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the Carlsbad Planning Division
are required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the project description to be
consistent with the conditions of the Carlsbad HMP. In addition, projects are required to implement project-specific
procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described in the Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could
be adversely affected by the project. Avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential indirect impacts to
sensitive species and habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required, potential impacts
on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad HMP requirements.
Implementation of the Phase Ill project would therefore not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad HMP and impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation:
The following measures would mitigate the potential significant impacts identified in Section 4 a), Section 4 b), and
Section 4 c) to less than significant levels.
Bio-lA
Bio-lB
Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including raptors,
protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code, the CMWD shall enforce the following:
Prior to construction activities requiring the removal. pruning. or damage of any trees, shrubs, and man-
made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.} acti,·e nests or any tree f')runing or rernoYal Of')erations
during the f')rirne nestinjil!general breeding seasons, that being from Marct.:i 15 to May 30 January 15 to
September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey st.:iall survey
tt.:ie trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction.
The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular
project component.of tree removal or f')runing.
If any active raptor nests are located Q.!1.QLWithin 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 oo tree f')runing or rerno¥al Of')erations can occur
until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have
fledged the nestvacateel or until the end of the p!'ime-general breeding season, whichever occurs later. iR
aelelition, f')rior to any tree rerno•ral or f')runing Of')erations f')rof')oseel outsiele of tt.:ie f')rirne nesting season
but witt.:iin tt.:ie f')erioel of January 15 to Sef')ternber 15, a8, qualified biologist shall confirmL in writingL that
no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities.
Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the
City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans.
Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, ES 2, ES
5, ES 8, and ES 9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to
an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-34
September 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
(<J(/
Bio-lC
Bio-1D
Bio-lE
Bio-lF
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to
perform a pre-construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project
construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction
for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project
plans that clearly depict the construction work limits, including construction staging and storage areas, in
order to determine which specific portion(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space
areas during the pre-construction survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of
the adjacent open space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the
likelihood for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila
californica californica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the
area. The pre-construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior to construction in order
to verify the need for additional construction measures proposed within Bio-lC through Bio-lF.
Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-
1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat
potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the
installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved
limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the
approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of
construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem
has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon
completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City
Planner prior to and concurrent with construction.
Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15
to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory
songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud
construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting
site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15
through September 15).
If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project could result
in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD
shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be
present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area
potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and
confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional
protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or
CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence.
Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B
that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially
suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such
that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall
receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of
equipment outside of the project boundaries.
Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the
project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable
for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings
to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization
requirements.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-35
&ep!ember 19, 2Gl 2
November 14. 2012
/6 \
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a □ □ [gJ □ historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an □ □ [gJ □ archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological □ □ [gJ □ resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred □ □ [gJ □ outside of formal cemeteries?
Explanation:
Information presented in this section is based upon a cultural resources records search performed by Atkins at the
South Coastal Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which included the
Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase 111 project.
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the record search conducted for the Master Plans EIR, no historical resources
are located within one mile of the proposed Phase Ill pipeline alignments, Twin D site, or the CWRF expansion.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the project would cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource
and impacts would be considered less than significant.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Numerous archaeological resources of varying sizes are located within the project
area. Archaeological resources are generally equally distributed throughout the project area, but can be described
as concentrated around and near existing, large water resources, including Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda, and
Batiquitos Lagoon. Based upon the frequency and distribution of these sites, as well as the results of the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) records search, the entirety of the project area is considered to exhibit high
archaeological resource sensitivity.
The records search conducted for the 2012 Master Plans EIR identified one known archaeological resource withiR
ti=le flFOIEimity ofpotential to be impacted by ES 7, as proposed in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. Refer to
Table 4.4-4 of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects with Potential to Result in Significant Impacts to Known
Archeological Resources or Would Occur in Previously Undisturbed Areas. The entirety of ES 7 includes the
proposed Phase Ill alignment and an extension of pipeline to serve the proposed Quarry Creek Development. The
known cultural resource identified in the 2012 Master Plans EIR is in the vicinity of the Quarry Creek portion of ES 7,
located in currently undeveloped land. This portion of ES 7 is not included as part of the proposed project.
Potential impacts to cultural resources that would result from the portion of ES 7 in undeveloped land will be
addressed in the EIR that is being prepared for the Quarry Creek development.
The CWRF expansion and new storage tank would make improvements to existing facilities. The site for the new
tank has been previously graded. ES 4A would convert an existing pipeline to recycled water use. No ground
disturbing activities would be required for construction of the CWRF expansion, construction, or relocation of a new
tank, or implementation of ES 4A. Therefore, these projects would not result in any impacts to known or unknown
archeological resources.
The remainder of the components of the Phase Ill project, including ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, and the portion
of ES 7 not within the Quarry Creek Development (as shown in Figure 8) would involve installation of new pipelines
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-36
Soplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
/otr
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 of the Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects Where Impacts are Minimized
through Implementation of Project Design Features. Archaeological resources within tl=ie reaelv,·a•t ROWpreviously
disturbed areas would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction. Therefore, the proposed Phase Ill
project would not result in additional impacts to archeological resources in these areas. However, due to the high
cultural resource sensitivity in the area, unknown cultural resources may still be uncovered during ground disturbing
construction activities. Implementation of the procedure listed in Appendix A for the accidental discovery of
archeological resources would reduce potential impacts to potentially significant unknown archaeological resources
to a less than significant level.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant. A paleontological resource analysis of the project area was included as part of the 2012 Master
Plans EIR (Burwasser 2010; Kennedy and Tan 2002). According to this data, the project area contains one geologic
unit of high paleontological sensitivity: the Santiago formation. Excavation and construction activities associated
with the Phase Ill project components located within the Santiago formation have the potential to disturb or destroy
paleontological resources. The Phase Ill project components proposed in areas with high paleontological sensitivity
include ES 1, ES 5, ES 7, and ES 18. However, these project components would be located entirely within existing
roadways. Potential paleontological resources in these roadway ROWs have already been disturbed and the Phase
Ill project would not result in additional impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts to paleontological
resources from the Phase Ill project would be less than significant.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than significant. None of the Phase Ill project components are proposed within any formal cemeteries.
However, previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area have included human burials, which
indicate that there is a potential for human remains to be present in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition,
the NAHC has indicated that human burials are located within and near the project area and beyond the boundaries
of formal cemeteries.
Sections 15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines assign special importance to human remains and specifies
procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed under
PRC Section 5097.98. The disturbance of any human remains is considered a significant impact, regardless of
archaeological significance or association. Any ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the
Phase Ill project, including trenching and excavation during construction, would have the potential to unintentionally
_disturb human remains, resulting in a significant impact.
Implementation of the required protocol in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and California State Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5, to be followed upon unintentional disturbance of human remains, would minimize
potential impacts on human remains. California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further
disturbance is permitted to occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native
American, the NAHC will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will
conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the
NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to provide technical
assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human
remains. Compliance with California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 would
reduce any potential impacts to human remains from the Phase Ill project to a level below significance and no
further mitigation would be required.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-37
SoploF'f!ber 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
J63
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 of the project and □ □ ~ □ potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks □ □ □ to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems □ □ □ where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Explanation:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than significant. The areas within the vicinity of the project components are not underlain by any known active,
potentially active, or inactive faults, and are not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineated
by the California Geological Survey (2010). Active faults in the region that could result in rupture include segments
of the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and Rose Canyon fault systems. These faults are not located within the project area.
Additionally, none of the proposed facilities involve human habitation; therefore, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act is not applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to
substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant. San Diego County has a high seismic potential (County 2009). Although the Phase Ill 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
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-38
~oplombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
the high seismic potential of the entire county, groundshaking risks cannot be entirely eliminated. However, the
CMWD would be required to implement the relevant requirements of the 2010 California Building Code (as updated
or amended) and California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, which would reduce
groundshaking impacts to the extent feasible. Additionally, as described in the construction measures listed in
Appendix A, a site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each
Phase Ill project component that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil. CMWD would be required
to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address potential site-specific hazards.
Therefore, potential impacts related to groundshaking would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
iv. Landslides?
Less than significant. Liquefaction is not known to have occurred historically in San Diego County. However, the
potential exists for liquefaction to occur in areas with loose sandy soils combined with a shallow groundwater table,
which typically are located in alluvial river valleys/basins and floodplains (County 2009). Additionally, certain lands
within the vicinity of the project components are subject to landslides. Generally, landslide potential is considered
high for areas that contain slopes of 15 percent or greater.
Figure 4.6-2, Geohazards, of the 2012 Master Plans EIR depicts the CIP projects that generally have a high potential
for liquefaction and landslides based on regional soil data. ES 4A is located in a potential landslide hazard area;
however, this project component would convert an existing potable water pipeline to recycled water use. No new
risk of damage or facility failure would result from this project component because no construction or ground
disturbance would occur, and no new facilities would be constructed.
ES 1, ES 5, and ES 7 are also located in areas of high landslide risk. ES 2 and ES 9 are located in liquefaction hazard
areas. ES 8 and ES 18 would potentially be exposed to landslide and liquefaction hazards, depending on the location
of the segment. However, as listed in Appendix A, a site specific geotechnical investigation would be completed
during the engineering and design of each project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil.
CMWD would be required to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address
potential site-specific hazards related to liquefaction and landslides. Therefore, potential impacts related to
liquefaction and landslides would be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant. The CWRF expansion, storage tank construction or relocation, and ES 4A would not result in
any earth-disturbing activities that would result in the exposure of soils. However, earth-disturbing activities such as
excavation and soil stockpiling associated with the construction of the remaining Phase Ill project components
would expose soils that could be subject to erosion during rain and wind events. However, as discussed in below in
Section 9a), construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or
General Linear Utility Permit requirements to protect water quality during construction, particularly from eroded
sediment. In addition, construction would be subject to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad,
Oceanside, or Vista, depending on project location. Compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A,
including the General Linear Utility Permit, and/or local development standards, including the preparation of a
SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, would reduce the potential increase in erosion associated with
construction activities to a less than significant level.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project
and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant. See Section 6a). A site-specific geotechnical investigation would be completed during the
engineering and design of each project in a potential hazard area {ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18) that
makes recommendations for any site-specific hazards. Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable soil would
be less than significant.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects I5/MND
Page IS-39
~optombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Less than significant. Figure 4.6-2, Geohazards, of the 2012 Master Plans EIR depicts the CIP projects that generally
have a high potential for expansive soils based on regional soil data. None of the Phase Ill project sites are located in
an area with high potential for expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No impact. The Phase Ill project proposes new infrastructure and would not involve the use of or need for septic
tanks or and other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not affect
existing sewer service. No impact would occur.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Explanation:
Potentially less Than less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
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 3850S(g) defines GHGs to include the following
compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As individual GHGs have varying
heat-trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e) units for comparison. The CO2e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it
normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. The most common GHGs related to the project are CO2
(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 CO2e per
year. Therefore, a project that emits more than 2,500 MT CO2e annually during construction or operation would
result in a potentially significant cumulative impact.
The 2012 Master Plans EIR quantified the GHG emissions that would result from construction and operation of all of
the CIP Projects proposed in the Master Plans, including the Phase Ill project. Construction of the project would
result in temporary emissions of GHG from the operation of construction equipment and from worker and building
supply vendor vehicles. Equipment that is associated with construction activity includes dozers, rollers, dewatering
pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery, and haul trucks. The 2012 Master Plans EIR determined that the worst-case
annual construction scenario, which included the Phase Ill project, would result in annual GHG emissions of 959 MT
CO2e. The worst-case construction scenario is described in greater detail in Section 2b). Construction of the Phase
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-40
~eplember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Ill project would be less than the overall total, and as a result would not generate significant GHG emissions during
construction.
Operational GHG emissions from the Phase Ill project would include indirect emissions from electricity usage and
direct emissions from mobile sources. The Phase Ill project would not result in an increase in demand for natural
gas, water, or solid waste disposal services; therefore, no increase in GHG emissions would occur from these
sources. Pipeline and storage projects, once constructed, would not require the use of electricity, emergency
generators, or any other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment. However, the increase in the capacity of the
CWRF would result in an increase in electricity demand. Existing electricity use at the CWRF is 1.2 million kWh (City
of Carlsbad 2011). The CWRF expansion would double the capacity of the existing CWRF; therefore, it was assumed
to result in a doubling of electricity demand. Therefore, the increase in capacity at the CWRF would result in a net
increase in demand of 1.2 million kWh, which would result in estimated GHG emissions of 396 MT CO2e (California
Climate Action Registry 2009).
The proposed Phase Ill project components are underground pipelines, a storage tank, and an improvement to the
existing CWRF facility. Following construction, the storage tank and underground pipelines would be passive and
would not require regular maintenance. Occasional vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to
existing pipelines. No new vehicle trips would be required by the CWRF for maintenance or operation of the
expansion. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips. In the
analysis in the 2012 Master Plans EIR, it was conservatively assumed that a net increase of one maintenance trip per
day would be required, for a total increase of 5 miles based on the distance from the City of Carlsbad/CMWD
operations buildings on Faraday Avenue to the farthest portion of CIP Project ES 4C. All of the project components
are closer to the CMWD building than CIP Project ES 4C; therefore, annual GHG emissions would be less than the 1
MT CO2e calculated for buildout of the Master Plans.
The total annual GHG emissions from construction of the CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Master Plans EIR
(including the Phase Ill project) is 959 MT CO2e. Operation of the Phase Ill project by itself is estimated to result in
operational GHG emissions of less than 397 MT CO2e per year. Neither the construction nor operation of the Phase
Ill project individually would exceed the significance threshold of 2,500 MT CO2e per year. Even if construction and
operational emissions would occur simultaneously (totaling 1,356 MT CO2e), annual GHG emissions would not
exceed the 2,500 MT CO2e threshold. Therefore, the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in a significant
impact related to GHG emissions.
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established statutory limits on
GHG emissions in California. Under AB 32, the 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.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-41
i;optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
(01
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant Wrth 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 wild land fires, including where □ □ □ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wild lands?
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
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-42
Soplombor 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 Ill project would have the potential to generate small amounts of
hazardous materials and wastes. Petroleum products such as fuels and oils would be the predominant materials
used during construction due to operation of motorized construction equipment and vehicles. The main hazardous
wastes produced by construction activity would be waste oil and oil-saturated materials from construction
equipment. Hazardous materials and waste would be managed and used in accordance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, described above. There would be no routine transport, storage, use, or
disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Minimal amounts of hazardous materials may be
transported to and from a site during construction, but the transport of such materials would be temporary and
subject to applicable regulations, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Therefore, impacts
associated with hazardous wastes generated from construction activities would be less than significant.
Following construction, the proposed pipelines and storage tank would be passive and would not require the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the CWRF currently uses chemicals and other
hazardous materials in its treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additional use of these
materials, including chlorine. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) has already been prepared for the CWRF
in accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Hazardous Materials Division
requirements. The HMBP includes an inventory of all hazardous materials and a description of each material's
properties, identification of the site operator, a map identifying the location of the hazardous materials, emergency
response procedures for major and minor emergencies, an emergency response plan, and a description of required
employee training.
Implementation of the CWRF expansion would result in a slight increase in the use of hazardous materials already
used at the CWRF due to an increase in the capacity of the treatment facility. Hazards related to these materials
could occur during storage, transportation, use, disposal, or accidental release. The proposed new CWRF treatment
facilities would be required to be incorporated into the existing CWRF HMBP. The procedures in the plan comply
with U.S. Department of Transportation (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) and CHP regulations for the
transportation of hazardous materials along state highways, and are subject to approval by the DEH. Disposal of
CWRF equipment, such as filters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state
and local laws and regulations. Therefore, routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials at the CWRF
would be managed and used as required by all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, such as
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act Title 22, the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, and Hazardous Material Business Plans. Impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal
of hazardous materials generated from operational activities would be less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport and use of fuels, oil, and
other fluids associated with construction equipment. Leaks or spills may occur during construction, potentially
releasing hydrocarbons to the environment; however, compliance with applicable California Department of Toxic
Substances Control regulations for the handling of hazardous materials and spill cleanup procedures would prevent
potentially significant impacts. Operation of the pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to
the environment. Operation of the CWRF expansion would be subject to the HMBP prepared for the CWRF which
has been approved by the DEH. This plan establishes procedures to minimize the potential for upsets or accidents to
occur in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations, and establishes emergency procedures should an
accident occur. Therefore, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-43
$optombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. Operation of the storage tank and pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the
environment. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the CWRF. No impact would occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than significant with mitigation. A record search of the areas in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project components
was conducted by Atkins in February 2012 of federal, state, and local databases of sites that generate, store, treat,
or dispose of hazardous materials, or sites for which a hazardous materials release or incident has occurred. The
records search included the GeoTracker database, the EnviroStor database, and the Site Assessment and Mitigation
Program. The Geo Tracker database is a geographic information system that provides on line access to environmental
data including underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies. The EnviroStor database
includes the following site types: Federal Superfund Sites (National Priorities List); State Response, including Military
Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. The Site Assessment and Mitigation Program
lists sites in San Diego County that require permitting for handling hazardous materials.
The Geo Tracker Database identified approximately 50 recorded sites along the Phase Ill project alignments and one
near the CWRF. Sites were identified along every Phase Ill alignment except ES 7. Site records included leaking
underground storage tanks, land disposal sites, and other cleanup sites. Ten out of the 50 recorded sites are open
cases; the remainder of the cases have been closed. Open cases involving leaking underground storage tank and
cleanup sites are concentrated near McClellan-Palomar Airport and gas stations along El Camino Real. One closed
underground storage tank case is located at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, adjacent to the CWRF. The
EnviroStor database identified one permitted hazardous materials facility (Cabrillo Power Plant) and one cleanup site
along ES 2, one permitted facility (Vista Industrial Products) and one school site investigation along ES 4A, and one
site evaluation of a dry cleaning facility along ES 9. The Site Assessment and Mitigation Program lists 783 permitted
hazardous materials establishments in Carlsbad. None of identified sites are located within a roadway ROW;
however, the potential exists for the soil underlying the Phase Ill project sites to have been previously contaminated
by hazardous substances as a result of former uses of the sites surrounding the alignment or leaks from unidentified
underground storage tanks. Typical pathways of exposure to pollutants from existing contamination include
inhalation of volatiles and fugitive particulates, and dermal absorption.
Potential exposure to contaminants could occur to construction workers during grading, trenching, excavation and
site development activities that would expose potentially contaminated soil. ES 4A, construction or relocation of the
storage tank, and the CWRF expansion do not require any ground-disturbing construction activities that would
potentially expose workers to contaminated soil. ES 7 is proposed in a residential neighborhood, which typically
does not include permitted hazardous materials establishments, and no hazardous materials sites were identified
along this alignment. Therefore, construction of ES 4A, ES 7, storage tank, and the CWRF expansion would not result
in a significant impact related to listed hazardous materials sites during construction. However, construction of ES 2,
ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potential to encounter contaminated soil during construction activities
and expose construction workers to a significant hazard. Impacts during construction would be potentially
significant. However, implementation of mitigation measures Haz-1 and Haz-2 would reduce potential hazards
related to listed hazardous materials sites to a less than significant level.
None of the Phase Ill project components propose a facility for human habitation that would potentially result in
long-term exposure to risks from an existing hazardous materials site. The CWRF expansion makes interior
improvements to an existing building at the CWRF. Therefore, workers at the CWRF would not be exposed to any
additional risk from hazardous sites as a result of the project. Additionally, the site located adjacent to the CWRF at
the EWPCF (Case No. T0607300568) is closed and no future action required. Therefore, potential impacts during
operation would be less than significant.
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-44
&oplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
I 10
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 of the proposed Phase Ill project components are
within the Airport Influence Area for Oceanside Municipal Airport. No impact would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project. No impact would occur.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than significant. Interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan would result in an
adverse physical effect to people or the environment by potentially increasing the loss of life and property in the
event of a disaster. The CWRF expansion, construction or relocation of the storage tank, and ES 4A would make
improvements to existing facilities and would not result in any impact to emergency response or evacuation plans
during construction or operation. Following construction, the proposed pipelines in ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9,
and ES 18 would be located underground. No impact to emergency response or evacuation plans would occur.
However, construction activities associated with these pipelines, particularly excavation and trenching activities
associated with pipeline extensions or other improvements that are within roadway ROW, may result in temporary,
construction-related lane and road closures or detours. Temporary roadway closures could potentially interfere
with emergency plans and procedures if appropriate authorities are not properly notified, or multiple projects are
constructed during the same time and multiple roadways used for emergency routes are concurrently blocked.
However, the CMWD has committed to preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan, as described in the
list of construction measures in Appendix A. With implementation of a traffic control plan, the Phase Ill project
would not result in a potentially significant impact associated with impairment or interference with emergency
response or evacuation plans.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including
where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than significant. Construction activities may result in a potential fire risk due to the presence of fuel-burning
construction equipment. The Phase Ill project components are located entirely within existing facilities or existing
roadway ROW in developed areas. However, some construction would occur adjacent to undeveloped areas. The
CMWD has committed to construction measures, listed in Appendix A to reduce fire risk during construction.
Preparation of a brush management plan and dissemination of fire safety information to construction crews would
ensure that construction impacts would not be significant.
Mitigation:
The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites
(Section 8d) to a less than significant level.
Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall
provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the
potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils,
these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH
requirements.
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-45
~oplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
t 11
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Haz-2 Construction Worker Health and Safety Work Plan. Prior to construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, or ES 18,
CMWD shall have a project-specific health and safety work plan prepared and distributed to the
construction workers to address the potential exposure to hazardous materials associated with working
with or near contaminated soil. This work plan shall comply with all County of San Diego DEH work plan
requirements including Community Health and Safety Planning to address physical hazards, site security,
management of soil and water, and monitoring equipment. A description of engineering controls and
measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site workers, public and
the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the construction area shall be
provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The engineering controls and measures
to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
1) An exclusion zone and support zone shall be established prior to start and during excavation activities.
No unauthorized personnel shall be allowed in these zones. Personnel authorized to work in these
zones shall have the required training and qualifications including the California Occupational Safety &
Health Administration (OSHA) HAZWOPER training.
2) Written notifications shall be posted on the perimeter fencing in advance of start of excavation to
notify the general public and hotel staff/operators of the nature and duration of work activities. The
postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers.
3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones.
4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks or
respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, 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.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-46
l>ep!ember 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge □ □ □ 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 □ □ □ C8J
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? □ □ □ C8J
Explanation:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than significant. The Phase Ill project would have the potential to contribute to a violation of water quality
standards or the degradation of surface water quality during construction. Construction of the Phase Ill project
could result in polluted runoff through activities such as excavation, stockpiling of soils and materials, and concrete
pouring. This runoff would have short-term adverse impacts on surface water quality. Typically, construction
activities involve various types of equipment such as dozers, scrapers, graders, loaders, compactors, dump trucks,
water trucks, and concrete mixers. Additionally, soils are typically stockpiled outdoors, in addition to other materials
that would be used later during construction.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-47
Seplember 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 of the storage tank would make
improvements to existing facilities on previously graded sites. No ground-disturbing acidities would be required and
potential pollutants from construction equipment would be contained within the CWRF or its existing drainage
system. Therefore, construction of these project components would not result in significant water quality impact
during construction.
Pollutants associated with construction activities for ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would potentially
degrade water quality if they are washed by storm water or non-storm water into surface waters. Sediment is often
the most common pollutant associated with construction sites because of the associated earth-moving activities and
areas of exposed soil. Sediment that is washed off site can result in turbidity in surface waters, which can impact
aquatic species. In addition, when sediment is deposited into receiving water it can smother organisms, alter the
substrate and habitat, and alter the drainage course. Hydrocarbons such as fuels, asphalt materials, oils, and
hazardous materials such as paints and concrete slurries discharged from construction sites could also impact
aquatic plants and animals downstream. Debris and trash could be washed into existing storm drainage channels to
downstream surface waters and could impact wildlife as well as aesthetic value. The potential increase in pollutants
associated with construction activities could result in a violation in water quality standards or a substantial
degradation of water quality.
However, construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or
General Linear Utility Permit (for expansion segments that would disturb less than one acre) requirements, in
addition to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad or Oceanside, depending on project location. The City
of Carlsbad Storm Water Standards Manual and the Oceanside Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance outline
specific requirements to ensure compliance with all applicable storm water ordinances. Every construction activity
within Carlsbad that has the potential to negatively affect water quality must prepare a construction SWPPP. A
SWPPP provides for temporary measures to control sediment and other pollutants during construction as required
by the most recent statewide permit regulating construction activities. The SWPPP requirements in the Storm Water
Standards Manual ensure compliance with the Carlsbad Storm Water Ordinance. Additionally, construction activities
must comply with all construction BMPs required pursuant to Title 15 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Grading and
Drainage, including minimizing and stabilizing disturbed areas, protecting slopes and channels, controlling the site
perimeter, and controlling internal erosion.
If dewatering is required for any Phase Ill project, dewatering and discharge activities would be subject to water
quality guidelines outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System administered by the San Diego
RWQCB. Additionally, the CMWD has committed to the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential water
quality impacts, including a spill contingency plan and requirements for groundwater disposal, if encountered.
Compliance with the proposed project features and the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A would reduce the
potential increase in pollutants associated with construction activities to a less than significant level.
Following construction,.the Phase Ill project would not result in any new impervious surfaces and does not include
any components that would generate potential water quality pollutants. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not
increase runoff and would not result in a violation of waste discharge requirements from operation. Impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less than significant. None of the Phase Ill project components would affect groundwater recharge because they
would not involve the extraction or use of groundwater supplies. Further, each project component would comply
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-48
~oplombor 19, 2012
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 of the proposed Phase Ill project would not use groundwater and would not directly
affect groundwater levels. Dewatering, a method which pumps groundwater into either a surface water body or
directly into a stormwater drainage system, may be required to prepare sites for placement of proposed pipelines
and other underground facilities; however, the potential impact to groundwater would be temporary and would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Further, the Phase Ill project would only result in an increase in
impervious surfaces at the new storage tank site and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, a
less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Phase Ill project.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
Less than significant. Land-disturbing construction activities for proposed Phase Ill project, such as grading,
trenching, or excavation, have the potential to result in localized temporary or permanent alteration of drainage
patterns. This can lead to deposition of pollutants and sediment to the watershed outlets and an increase in
polluted runoff to surface receiving bodies. However, as discussed in Section 9a), project design features and
existing state and local regulations are in place to ensure that impacts to water quality from construction activities
would not occur, including increases in sediment runoff. These regulations require the implementation of BMPs
during construction that minimize disturbance, protect slopes and reduce erosion. Compliance with existing
regulations would reduce the potential increase in polluted runoff, erosion and siltation associated with construction
to a less than significant level. Upon completion of construction, no increase in impervious surfaces would occur as a
result of the Phase Ill project. Trenched areas would be restored to their previous condition and no alteration of the
drainage pattern would occur. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the project would
not substantially alter drainage patterns and would not increase erosion and siltation.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
Less than significant. Land-disturbing construction activities, such as grading and excavation, could result in the
localized alteration of drainage patterns. Temporary ponding and/or flooding could result from temporary
alterations of the drainage system that reduce its capacity to carry runoff. However, construction of the Phase Ill
project would be required to comply with existing regulations that reduce the likelihood of alterations in drainage to
result in flooding impacts, such as those listed above in Section 9a). Through compliance with existing local and state
regulations, including implementation of construction BMPs, construction activities associated with the Phase Ill
project would not increase the rate and amount of surface runoff to streams and rivers in a manner which would
result in flooding on or off site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than significant. Drainage facilities including storm drains, culverts, inlets, channels, curbs, roads, or other such
structures are designed to prevent flooding by collecting storm water runoff and directing flows to either the natural
drainage course and/or away from development. If drainage facilities are not adequately designed, built, or properly
maintained, the capacity of the existing facilities can be exceeded resulting in flooding and increased sources of
polluted runoff. As discussed in Section 9d), the Phase Ill project would have the potential to result in alterations of
drainage patterns during construction. This alteration in drainage patterns could exceed the capacity of existing or
planned on-site and off-site storm water drainage systems.
Storm water discharges are generated by precipitation and runoff from land, structures, and other surfaces.
Substantial increased runoff volumes would have the potential to overload existing drainage facilities and increase
flows and velocity which could result in flooding, increased erosion, and impacts to downstream receiving waters
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-49
Soplornbor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
and habitat integrity. However, construction of the Phase Ill project would be required to comply with state and
local stormwater regulations, including construction BMPs, which reduce the likelihood of runoff exceeding the
capacity of an existing storm water drainage system. Through compliance with the existing regulations, the Phase Ill
project would not increase runoff in volumes that would exceed pre-project site conditions and would not exceed
the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 9 a), compliance with applicable state and local regulations would
prevent potentially significant impacts to water quality. Operation of the proposed pipelines would be entirely
underground and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The storage tank would be a passive facility
on an existing storage tank site and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The CWRF expansion .
makes improvements to an existing facility and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. Therefore, the
proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No impact. The Phase Ill project does not include the provision of any housing; therefore, the project would not
place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FIRM or other
flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur.
h} Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No impact. The Phase Ill project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities.
Approximately 20 feet of the ES 8 pipeline alignment would be exposed over Encinitas Creek within the South La
Costa Golf Course; however. the 6 inch pipeline would be attached to the side of an existing bridge and would not
result in any additional interference with 100-year flows. Therefore, the project would not place structures which
would impede or redirect flow within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No impact. The dam inundation area potentially affecting the Phase Ill project surrounds the Maerkle Dam, in close
proximity to ES 8. However, ES 8 proposed an underground pipeline that would not be affected by dam inundation.
None of the Phase Ill project components involve housing or structures for human occupancy. Therefore, a dam
inundation event would not result in injury or death related to proposed Phase Ill project. No impact would occur.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No impact. A seiche is a standing wave in a completely or partially enclosed body of water. Although Maerkle
Reservoir is located near ES 8, this water body is not large enough to be subject to seiches. Some overtopping of the
reservoirs may occur; however, ES 8 propose~ an underground pipeline. The Phase Ill project does not propose
any structures that would be at risk from seiches.
A tsunami is a very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. Tsunamis can cause
flooding to coastlines and inland areas less than SO feet above sea level and within one mile of the shoreline. The
CWRF expansion, ES 2, and ES 9 would be located within one mile of the coastline. However, these project
components propose improvements to an existing facility and underground pipelines. The Phase Ill project would
not result in new facilities at risk for tsunami hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to a
significant risk from a tsunami.
Debris flows, also known as mudflows, are shallow water-saturated landslides that travel rapidly down slopes
carrying rocks, brush, and other debris. The project area contains many areas with steep slopes, or mountainous
areas, that would potentially be subject to mudflows in the event of large amounts or precipitation. However, the
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-50
lleplember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
\\lo
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Phase Ill project does not propose housing or buildings for human occupancy; therefore, life loss would not occur in
the event of a mudflow. No new structures are proposed that would have the potential to be at risk of structure loss.
Therefore, no impact related to mudflows would occur.
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
10. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ □
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, □ □ □ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or □ □ □ natural communities conservation plan?
Explanation:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant. The Phase Ill project proposes underground facilities and improvements on CMWD property
containing existing facilities. The Phase Ill project would not result in any new physical barriers following
construction. As discussed in Section 8g), the CMWD would implement traffic control plans during construction so
that roadways affected by construction would continue to be usable by vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established neighborhood during construction or operation.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with 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 Ill project would be located within existing or planned roads, an
existing tank site, and the existing CWRF. Construction would result potential incompatibilities with surrounding
land uses if it would require a roadway closure. However, as discussed in Section 8g), a traffic control plan would be
implemented during construction of any Phase Ill project that would interfere with traffic flow. Construction
activities would also have the potential to generate noise levels that are incompatible with surrounding land uses.
As discussed in Section 12d), construction activities would comply with all restrictions on construction hours
established in the Carlsbad and Oceanside noise ordinances so that construction would not disturb sleep.
Construction ·activities would also include best management practices to minimize noise to daytime noise sensitive
land uses. Therefore, construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in any significant land use
conflicts or incompatibilities.
The Phase Ill project proposes below-ground pipelines and upgrades to and existing tank site and the existing CWRF
and would not have local land use effects after installation. The CWRF expansion would not result in any change in
land use and would not result in any land use conflicts or incompatibilities. As discussed in Section 13, the Phase Ill
project components were designed to meet present and future recycled water needs for projected growth within
the areas served by the CMWD, consistent with the 2012 RWMP growth projections. Implementation of the Phase
Ill project would not induce any unplanned growth. The 2012 RWMP is intended to implement the recycled water
infrastructure necessary to meet the land use goals established in the Carlsbad General Plan. The Phase Ill project
would also potentially require discretionary permits from the jurisdiction in which the project is located, whether it
be Carlsbad or Oceanside. Future projects would be required to comply with all applicable land use regulations in
order to obtain project approval and would be further evaluated at the time of project design and review.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-51
Soptombor 19. 2Ql 2
November 14. 2012
I 11
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not conflict with the Carlsbad General Plans or other land use regulations and
ordinances.
The Coastal Zone of Carlsbad is located within areas that are west of El Camino Real. The CWRF expansion, ES 1, ES
2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 are located in this area. These project components would have the potential to affect the
Coastal Zone, and some construction activities would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Since
Carlsbad has an approved Local Coastal Program as of 1996, the City acts as the local permitting authority for the
issuance of CDPs for projects located within its coastal zone, with a few exceptions. There are areas of "deferred
certification" where the state retains permitting authority. For example, Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies outside of
Carlsbad's permitting authority, and the project in its vicinity (ES 2) would require a CDP from the California Coastal
Commission. All projects in the Carlsbad coastal zone would require review for consistency with the Local Coastal
Program and California Coast Act prior to issuance of a CDP. The future required review and issuance of CDPs would
ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the Local Coastal Program; individual components would
require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with the California Coast Act.
The Phase Ill project would not conflict with any existing general plan, coastal plan or any other land use plan or
policy, or result in any land use incompatibilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As evaluated above in Section 4 f), several project components could result in
potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP. However, potential
impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad HMP
requirements. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would therefore not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad HMP
and impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
11. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of □ □ □ the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site, delineated on a local general □ □ □ plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Explanation:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
No impact. No mineral resources are actively being extracted and utilized as exploitable natural resources within
Carlsbad. The Phase Ill project component areas are designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3, which indicated that
mineral resources are potentially present. Additional geotechnical investigations would be required to determine
whether these areas contain resources of value, or are located in areas that do not contain mineral resources
(Dudek 2003, City of Vista 2011, and City of Oceanside 2002). Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not result in the
loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-52
:;oplombor l \l, 2012
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 Ill project would be constructed within roadway ROW or at existing facilities. Additionally,
the proposed Phase Ill project consists of public utilities infrastructure that would not be considered incompatible
land uses that would preclude areas surrounding the project components sites from being used for mineral
extraction. No impact would occur.
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
12. Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or □ □ ~ □ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive □ □ ~ □ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the □ □ ~ □ project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing □ □ □ without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
□ of a public airport or public use airport, would the project □ □ expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project □ □ □ area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant. Construction of the project would potentially result in temporary increases in noise levels from
the operation of construction equipment. Construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project would involve
the use of heavy equipment during trenching and extraction, and installation of some equipment, such as the CWRF
expansion equipment. Equipment that would be associated with construction of the proposed Phase Ill project
includes dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, cranes, and delivery trucks. The magnitude of the
impact would depend on the type of construction activity, type of construction equipment, duration of the
construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening topography. Sound levels
of typical construction equipment range from 60 dBA to 90 dBA at 50 feet from the source (FHWA 2008).
The CMWD has committed to the measures list in Appendix A during construction of Phase Ill project to minimize
noise effects to surrounding neighborhoods, including distancing noise sources from residences, compliance with
applicable noise ordinances, and providing notice of construction to residents and property owners.
The City of Carlsbad prohibits construction after sunset on any day, and before 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday,
and before 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day on Sunday or holidays. In Oceanside, operation
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND
Page IS-53
Soplombor 19, '.lQl '.l
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
Applicable Limit
Zone (decibels) <11 Time Period
Residential Estate, Single-Family Residential, Medium Density 50 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
Residential, Agricultural, Open Space 45 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
High Density, Residential Tourist 55 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
50 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
Commercial 65 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
60 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
Industrial 70 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
65 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
Downtown 65 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
55 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
'11 One-hour average sound level.
Source: City of Oceanside Municipal Code, Section 38.12
A portion of ES 5 is located in Oceanside. ES 5 would install a new pipeline to increase the availability of recycled
water. The Oceanside City Management would determine if this project would further public interest and would be
exempted from the hourly noise level limits. Regardless, the project design features above would minimize
construction noise. Additionally, the proposed Phase Ill project would not be constructed all at once and not all
equipment would be operating at the same time. Pipeline projects would be constructed in a linear fashion and
would only result in construction noise at a particular receptor for a short time. Therefore, implementation of the
Phase Ill project would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the
Carlsbad or Oceanside noise ordinances during construction.
Following construction, the potential transportation noise sources for the Phase Ill project would be primarily
associated with vehicular trips by employees. However, as addressed in Section 2, operation of the Phase Ill project
would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The Phase Ill project would make improvements to the
existing CWRF or are passive pipeline and storage projects that would not increase the number of maintenance trips
typically required. Additionally, maintenance trips would be to facilities throughout the project areas and would not
be concentrated on a specific roadway. Due to the minimal number and geographic distribution of vehicular trips
associated with the maintenance of the Phase Ill project, transportation noise increases would be negligible.
Therefore, the project would not result in significant permanent increases in ambient noise associated with
transportation noise sources.
Following construction, the Phase Ill pipeline projects and storage tank would be passive and would not result in
permanent increases in the ambient noise environment. No operational noise impact would occur. The CWRF
expansion would increase the capacity of the CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact
basins. The CWRF currently generates noise from operation of pumps. Noise generating equipment would be
located within a concrete enclosure to attenuate noise. Additionally, the CMWD has committed to the construction
measures listed in Appendix A, including ensuring that operating equipment will be designed to comply with all
applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations. Therefore, the increase in capacity at the CWRF would not
permanently increase the ambient noise level surrounding the CWRF. Occasional maintenance and emergency
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-54
:;eptember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
repair activities on any Phase Ill project would have the potential to generate some additional noise. However,
these activities are sporadic in nature and do not occur at the same location for long periods of time.
Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not result in a significant impact related to substantial permanent
increases in ambient noise levels.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than significant. Vibration sources associated with implementation of the Phase Ill would be generated
primarily from project construction. Once installed, the Phase Ill project facilities include passive pipelines and
treatment facilities that do not generate substantial levels of vibration.
Construction-related vibration would have the potential to impact nearby structures and vibration-sensitive
equipment and operations. The level of vibration generated from other construction activities would depend on the
type of soils and the energy-generating capability of the construction equipment. According to Caltrans typical
construction activities and equipment, such as dozers, earth movers, and trucks have not exceeded 0.10 in/sec peak
particle velocity at 10 feet. Vibration criteria for sensitive equipment and operations must be determined based on
manufacturer specifications and recommendations by the equipment user. As a guide, major construction activity
within 200 feet may be potentially disruptive to sensitive operations (Caltrans 2002).
No pile driving or blasting, which would potentially generate higher levels of vibration, would be required for
implementation of the Phase Ill project. Phase Ill project components located near existing commercial or industrial
development that would require heavy equipment operation that may be potentially disruptive to vibration-
sensitive operations include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18. As listed in Appendix A, the CMWD has
committed to providing advance notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to
residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. The announcement will state specifically where and
when construction will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice will
be made, either in person or by mail. Therefore, vibration-sensitive land uses within the vibration screening distance
for major construction activity would receive adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration. Although
vibration may be an annoyance to residents, residential development does not include vibration sensitive equipment
and is not considered a day-time vibration-sensitive land use. As discussed under Section 4.11.3.2 (Issue 2),
construction activities would take place during the day in accordance with the affected cities' noise ordinances.
Therefore, construction of the Phase Ill project would not disturb sleep and would not result in a significant vibration
impact to residential development.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 12 a), the proposed Phase Ill project would not generate substantial
new operational noise. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less tha~ significant. As discussed in Section 12a), construction of the proposed project would result in temporary
increases in noise levels from the operation of construction equipment; however, noise levels would comply with
applicable noise ordinances and the CMWD would implement BMPs to minimize noise. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-55
Sopfombor 19, 2Q12
November 14. 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Less than significant. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located within Carlsbad. Oceanside Municipal Airport, a public
airport, is located in Oceanside. ES 1 would be located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and
Flight Activity Zone. However, the Phase Ill project would construct recycled water infrastructure and do not involve
any construction or long-term operational features for human occupancy that would result in regular exposure to
aircraft noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport or Oceanside Municipal Airport. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. There are no private airstrips located in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip. No
impact would occur.
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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing □ □ □ [g]
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the □ □ □ [g] construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Explanation:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or Indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No impact. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not directly induce population growth because the project
does not propose any new homes or business that would directly attract new growth. Additionally, implementation
of the Phase Ill project would not indirectly induce population growth because the plans have been developed to
accommodate projected population growth associated demand for recycled water projects in the 2012 RWMP,
which was prepared based on the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Growth Database. Therefore, the
projected population growth of the region that would be accommodated by the proposed Phase Ill was based upon
existing and planned land use data for the project area. The Phase Ill would not result in population growth. No
impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No impact. No housing units would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. No people would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not necessitate the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-56
$op!ombor 19, 2012
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 of the public services:
a) Fire Protection? D D
b) Police Protection? □ □ c) Schools? □ □ d) Parks? □ □ e) Other public facilities? □ □
Explanation:
a) Fire Protection?
□ □ □ □ □
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for fire services. As such, the project would not require
the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Police Protection?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for police services. As such, the project would not require
the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Schools?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for schools. As such, the project would not require the
provision of new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Parks?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for parks. As such, the project would not require the
provision of new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Other Public Facilities?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for other public services. As such, implementation of the
Phase Ill project would not require the provision of new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-57
ggplombor 19, 2Q12
November 14. 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
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:
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant With Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
□ □ □
□ □ □
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to the existing facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The Phase Ill project does not contain any residential uses or other
land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore, implementation of the Phase Ill project would
not impact the use of parks or other recreational facilities. There would be no impact to recreational facilities, and
no further analysis is required. No impact would occur.
b} Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No impact. The project includes improvements to the existing facilities and installation of new pipelines. The project
does not contain any residential uses or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore,
the project would not require the construction or expansion of new recreational facilities. There would be no
impact to recreational facilities, and no further analysis is required. No impact would occur.
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant With
Impact Mitigation
16. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system,
based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as
designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking
into account all relevant components of the circulation □ □ system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards □ □ established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results □ □ in substantial safety risks?
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-58
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
□
□
□
,!;eplember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
d)
e)
f)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Explanation:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
Less Than Less Than
Significant With Significant
Mitigation Impact No Impact
□ □ ~
□ ~ □
□ ~ □
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as
designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would generate construction-related trips from
trucks hauling soil and/or debris from the construction sites; trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the
construction sites; and construction workers driving to/from the construction sites. These localized increases in
construction traffic would be temporary. Construction of the Phase Ill project would not occur all at once, and
would take place throughout the study area so that even simultaneous construction projects would not concentrate
traffic on the same roadways. Construction traffic would only affect a limited area immediately surrounding the
active construction area for a short time during construction of a particular Phase Ill project. Construction projects
would not be expected to generate an increase in vehicular trips that would degrade the level of service on
surrounding roadways to below an acceptable level.
The Phase Ill project would require the installation of new pipelines (ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18)
within the public ROW. Staging and storage areas may also be located in a portion of the public ROW. Potential
impacts include disruption of traffic from lane closures, detours, increased truck and other construction-related
traffic, and disruption of access to local businesses and residences in some cases. These types of impacts may affect
local circulation during the short-term course of construction activities. The CMWD will prepare and implement a
traffic control plan, as described in the construction measure for Transportation/Traffic listed in Appendix A.
Implementation of the traffic control plan would reduce potential impacts during construction to a less than
significant level.
Permanent traffic associated with operation of the Phase Ill project would occur primarily from vehicular trips by
employees. However, operation of the project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The
proposed project components are underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities. Following
construction, the underground pipelines would be passive and would not require regular maintenance. Occasional
vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to existing pipelines. The CWRF and Twin D tank site
currently require vehicle trips for maintenance. The CWRF expansion and new or relocated storage tank would not
result in new maintenance vehicle trips. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be
distributed on roadways throughout project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Implementation of the proposed
Phase Ill project would not result in long-term impacts to traffic. The project would not degrade the traffic level of
service in the study area. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less than significant. Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways that serve the City of Carlsbad, and the
portion of the City of Oceanside in the project area, include Interstate 5, State Route 78, El Camino Real, Palomar
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-59
~oplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road (SAN DAG 2008). Construction of the proposed project would not require
construction in any of these CMP roadway ROW, with the exception of E_I Camino Real. As discussed in Section 16a),
the CMWD would implement a traffic control plan to reduce potential impacts to traffic flow during construction to
a less than significant level. In addition, operation of the Phase Ill project would generate a negligible increase in
vehicles trips in the area. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be distributed on roadways
throughout the project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the SAN DAG CMP. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks?
No impact. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not involve the construction of facilities that would
require changes in air traffic patterns from increased traffic levels, location or design. No impact would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No impact. The Phase Ill project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to CMWD properties that are
developed with existing facilities. The improvements to existing facilities would n·ot be located adjacent to public.
roadways. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible
uses. No impact would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant. Emergency access could be temporarily affected by construction in roadway ROW, which
would restrict access the area surrounding the construction sites, but roadways would not be permanently affected
by implementation of the Phase Ill project. Lane closures during construction would have the potential to result in
inadequate emergency access. However, implementation of the traffic control plan described in Appendix A,
including coordination with emergency service providers, would ensure that significant impacts would not occur
during construction of any of the proposed Phase Ill project components.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Less than significant. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and public transit could be temporarily affected by
construction within roadway ROW, but facilities would not be permanently affected by implementation of the Phase
Ill project. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not conflict with policies or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise permanently decrease the access, performance, or safety of such
facilities. As discussed in Section 16a), lane and sidewalk enclosures during construction would have the potential to
decrease the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities. However, implementation of the traffic
control plan would ensure that significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycled facilities would not occur during
construction of the proposed Phase Ill project. Construction of ES 2 in the railroad ROW would be installed using the
trench less jack-and-bore construction method and would not interfere with railroad operation. Therefore, impacts
to alternative transportation would be less than significant.
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-60
Soplombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
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 □ □ [8J □ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and □ □ [8J □ regulations related to solid waste?
Explanation:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No impact. Construction of the proposed pipelines would potentially require the dewatering; however, the
dewatering effluent would be treated prior to discharge into the City's sanitary sewer system such that the water
quality would meet the requirements of the EWPCF and the RWQCB. Operation of the recycled water pipelines,
storage tank, and CWRF expansion would not generate wastewater; they would treat and convey treated
wastewater as part of the CMWD's recycled water system. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater
treatment requirement of the RWQCB. No impact would occur.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No impact. The Phase Ill project would not require potable water or generate wastewater. In addition, there is no
new development associated with the proposed project which would increase potable water demand or wastewater
generation. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (other than those associated with the proposed Phase Ill project
to treat and convey recycled water). No impact would occur.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No impact. The proposed project is an expansion of the CWRF, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and
underground recycled water pipelines; operation of the pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not
discharge into the storm water drainage system or generate surface runoff. In addition, no new impervious surfaces
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-61
Soplombor 1 \l, 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 entitlements needed?
Less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would potentially require the use of water for fugitive
dust control and trench compaction. Construction-related water usage would be temporary and limited to relatively
small amounts; therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing
entitlements. Operation of the CWRF expansion and recycled water pipelines would not require use of water. In
fact, operation of the Phase Ill project would reduce existing and future potable water demand by expanding the
availability of recycled water. Impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that
it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Less than significant. Wastewater discharged to the Carlsbad sanitary sewer system is conveyed to the EWPCF. The
EWPCF currently treats approximately 24 million gallons per day of wastewater, and has a treatment capacity of
40.51 million gallons per day (Encina Wastewater Authority 2010, 2012).
Construction of the proposed project would potentially require the discharge of treated dewatering effluent into the
Carlsbad sanitary sewer system; however, wastewater generation from dewatering operations would be temporary
and limited to small amounts relative to the capacity of the EWPCF. No wastewater would be generated by
operations of the Phase Ill project. Therefore, the EWPCF has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
Less than significant. Construction-related non-recyclable solid waste generation would be temporary and limited to
small amounts relative to the landfill's available capacity and permitted daily throughput; therefore, there would be
sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Moreover, the long-term
operations of proposed pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not generate solid waste that would
impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. Operation of the pipelines and storage tank would not generate solid
waste. The only waste that would be generated by the CWRF would be disposal of filters and other equipment at
the end of its lifespan. Products would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and
regulations and would not impact local landfill capacity. Impacts to landfills would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 8a), all demolition debris and construction waste associated with
construction of the Phase Ill project would be properly handled and disposed of, in accordance with federal, state
and local laws and regulations related to solid and hazardous waste. Disposal of CWRF equipment at the end of its
lifespan would also be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Impacts would
be less than significant.
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-62
September 19, 2012
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 of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a □ □ □ project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly □ □ □ or indirectly?
Explanation:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Sections 4 a), 4 b), and 4 c) above with regard to biological resources.
The proposed project would not result in any direct impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or wetlands.
However, construction activities associated with project components ES 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 could result in potential
runoff that could affect wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, and inadvertent intrusions of construction
equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. Mitigation measures
Bio-lA through Bio-lF would be implemented to ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant
indirect impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitat, or wetland.
In addition, refer to Sections 5 a) and 5 b), above, with regard to cultural resources. The proposed project would not
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The Phase Ill project would be
located in existing facilities or existing roadways. If unknown archaeological resources are discovered during project
construction, the CMWD has committed to a design feature to protect potentially significant resource that would
reduce archaeological impacts associated with project construction to below a level of significance.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
Less than significant. The cumulative impact analysis determines whether the proposed project's incremental
effects would be "cumulatively considerable" when viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, or
probable future projects. A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the effect would be essentially the
same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. In discussing the cumulative impacts, one question and
a possible follow-up question will be answered for each environmental topic:
I /\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-63
~oploFAbor 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 of the potential cumulative impacts of the
Phase Ill project, in combination with the remaining RWMP CIP Projects, the 2012 Sewer and Water Master Plan
Projects, and cumulative development in the CMWD services area. This analysis is incorporated by reference, and is
summarized below as it pertains to the Phase Ill project. The following environmental topics are not discussed any
further in this section because the proposed project would have no direct impact related to these issues:
Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation.
Aesthetics. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to aesthetics is limited to the project site and its immediate
surroundings. The proposed project is located in existing roadway ROW and existing facilities in developed areas.
However, some areas of open space existing along proposed alignments. Consistent with the Master Plans EIR, as
Carlsbad continues to develop, the appearance of the project area will continue to change from undeveloped to a
more built-out, urbanized landscape. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to aesthetics is significant.
However, following construction, the Phase Ill project would be located underground or within existing CMWD sites
containing similar infrastructure. A substantial permanent visual impact would not occur as a result of the Phase Ill
project. The Phase Ill project would not result in cumulatively considerable contribution to a potentially significant
cumulative aesthetic impact.
Air Quality. Refer to Section 3c) for a discussion of cumulative air quality impacts. As discussed in Section 3c),
construction of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant air
quality impact related to ozone precursors or particulate matter.
Biological Resources. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to biological resources would encompass areas
contained within the planning boundaries for the Carlsbad HMP. Development projects within the cumulative
setting of the Carlsbad HMP would have the potential to contribute to cumulative direct and indirect impacts to
sensitive species and natural communities, including wetlands. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to
sensitive biological resources within and adjacent to the proposed project (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is
significant. Since the adoption of the Carlsbad HMP, project-level and cumulative imp.acts for development projects
within the city have been mitigated to levels of less than significant. One of the many benefits of a regional habitat
conservation plan, such as the Carlsbad HMP, is that the cumulative effects of growth are mitigated by establishing a
process that preserves the most important biological resources in the region. Since its adoption, implementation of
the Carlsbad HMP has resulted in the conservation and preservation of lands supporting the highest quality and
value habitat within the city. These preserve lands support special status species, sensitive natural communities,
wetlands, and other regionally important biological resources. The preservation of this habitat has allowed for
development within the city to occur without contributing substantially to a cumulative impact.
As discussed above within Section 4, construction of some project components would have the potential to
indirectly impact off-site undeveloped areas potentially supporting special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural
communities, and habitat supporting wetlands. The magnitude of potential impacts is anticipated to be relatively
low due to the small size of the project components and temporary nature of proposed activities. All sensitive
habitat areas would be avoided and the project would incorporate adequate setbacks and protection measures to
restrict construction activities within disturbed and developed areas. Potential runoff and increase in pollutants
associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through
compliance with the proposed project features, Storm Water General Permit, General Linear Utility Permit, and local
development standards, including the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of applicable BMPs. In addition,
the CMWD is required to adhere to the provisions of the HPMR Ordinance and Carlsbad HMP protecting sensitive
biological resources within the city. Through consistency with the Carlsbad HMP and implementation of mitigation
measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
toward impacts on special status species within the regional cumulative impact area.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-64
~opiombor 19, 2012
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 Ill project sites. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative
impacts to paleontological resources encompasses the paleontologically sensitive geologic formation within the
project area, which is the Santiago Formation. Ground disturbance (e.g., grading, trenching, excavation) associated
with implementation of cumulative projects could have significant impacts on archaeological, historical, and
paleontological resources. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to cultural resources due to future
development within the planning area (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is significant.
As discussed in Section 5 above, implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact on
historical resources, known archeological resources, or paleontological resources. The CMWD has committed to a
protocol for the accidental discovery of unknown archeological resources that, if resources are discovered, would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, construction associated with the Phase Ill project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of archaeological or historical resources within the
regional cumulative impact area.
Geology and Soils. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils is generally site-
specific rather than cumulative in nature because each site has unique geologic consideration that would be subject
to uniform site development and construction standards. The structural design for all of the cumulative projects, as
well as their associated construction activities, would be required to comply with all applicable public health, safety,
and building design codes and regulations to reduce seismic and geologic hazards to an acceptable level. Therefore,
because compliance with all applicable codes and regulations is required for all cumulative projects, a significant
cumulative impact associated with geology and soils would not occur, and an analysis of the proposed project's
incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact is not required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Refer to Section 7 a) for a discussion of cumulative GHG emissions impacts. Due to the
global nature of the assessment of GHG emissions and the effects of climate change, impacts can currently only be
analyzed from a cumulative context. Therefore, the analysis provided in Section 7 a) includes both project-specific
and cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section 7 a), construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant global climate change impact related to GHG emissions.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and
hazardous materials is site-specific, and therefore limited to the project site and its immediate surroundings. Due to
historical releases in the area, contaminated soils and groundwater are likely to be encountered during construction
of the proposed project and nearby cumulative projects, which would potentially expose the public and the
environment to hazardous materials. This represents a potentially significant cumulative impact; however,
implementation of mitigation measure Haz-1 and Haz-2 would mitigate the Phase Ill project's direct and cumulative
impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality is
defined as the project site and the portions of the Carlsbad watershed directly downstream from the Phase Ill
project locations.
Water Quality. Even with the promulgation of storm water regulations, land disturbance and development activities
throughout the Carlsbad watershed continue to contribute to the overall water quality problems observed in runoff
flows that discharge into watercourses, lagoons, and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Water bodies in the Carlsbad
Watershed have been placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Therefore, the baseline
cumulative impact pertaining to water quality is significant. As discussed above in Section 9, the Phase Ill project
would comply with the General Linear Utility Permit and all other applicable storm water requirements, which would
ensure that the proposed project would not contribute to the further degradation of water quality. Following
construction, the Phase Ill project would not result in new sources of pollutants and would not result in a change to
the existing site drainage pattern. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the Phase Ill
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-65
Soptombor 19, 2012
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 Ill project would not result in permanent impacts to existing
drainage patterns and would comply with all applicable storm water requirements during construction, which would
reduce impacts related to drainage alteration, flooding, and exceedance of capacity of storm water drainage
facilities to a level below significance. The Phase Ill would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
the cumulatively significant regional alteration of drainage patterns.
Land Use and Planning. Impacts related to consistency with land use plans and policies, and physical division of an
established community, are project-specific and not cumulative in nature. It is anticipated that development of
future cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project would undergo CEQA review which would require a
consistency analysis with applicable plans and polices. As required by CEQA, cumulative projects would be
consistent with the existing adopted plans, or require mitigation measures or design review to ensure consistency As
discussed in Section 10) above, implementation of the Phase Ill Project would not result in new land uses that would
be incompatible with surrounding land uses and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore,
the Phase Ill project, in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact
associated with land use and planning.
Noise. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the source
increases. The area of cumulative impact would be only those projects within the immediate vicinity of the Phase Ill
project. Construction of cumulative development projects is not likely to result a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels due to the localized nature of noise impacts, and construction projects would not occur
simultaneously or at the same location. In addition, construction noise for cumulative projects would be subject to
the noise standards within the appropriate jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 10), the Phase Ill project would
comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations that limit construction hours, and construction of the
Phase Ill project would implement best management practices to minimize construction noise. The Phase Ill project,
in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in cumulatively significant increases in temporary noise
levels.
Potential operational noise impacts from cumulative projects would be required to comply with the noise standards
for the jurisdiction that they are located in. As discussed in Section 10a), maintenance for the Phase Ill project may
require occasional vehicle trips for maintenance. Due to the minimal number and the geographic distribution of
vehicular trips associated with the maintenance of the projects, transportation noise increases, in comparison to
existing conditions, would not be perceptible. In addition, operational noise sources from pipelines and the storage
tank would be negligible once constructed since these are passive facilities. The CWRF expansion equipment would
be enclosed and would not increase noise levels existing noise generated on-site from pumps and other equipment.
The Phase Ill, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant increase
in permanent ambient noise levels.
Transportation/Traffic. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to transportation/traffic is limited to the
roadways that would be impacted by the proposed project during construction. It is possible that one or more of
the cumulative projects located in close proximity would be constructed concurrently with the proposed project,
which could result in a cumulative short-term impact to traffic conditions on these roadways. However,
implementation of a traffic control plan, as discussed in Section 16a) would mitigate the project's direct and
cumulative traffic impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring that adequate vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle
access is maintained during construction. Following construction, operation of the Phase Ill project would result in a
negligible amount of new traffic and would not result in a permanent impact to the regional transportation network.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-66
September 19, 2012
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 will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant with mitigation. The proposed project would result in potentially substantial adverse effects to
human beings related to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. However, potential
impacts associated with the project (e.g. biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials) would either be
less than significant or mitigated to below a level of significance with the implementation of mitigation measures
Bio-lA through Bio-lF, Haz-1, and Haz-2. These mitigation measures are described in Sections 1-17 of the Initial
Study and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project.
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case a discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
This analysis incorporates by reference the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and CMWD Water
and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006, EIR 12-01). The Draft EIR addresses the
potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plan CIP Projects, including the CWRF expansion, relocation or construction of a new storage
tank, and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 18. This Initial Study also uses the information included in the
previous Initial Study and Environmental Checklist prepared for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase
II Project in December 1999, which included construction of the existing CWRF. Each of these prior certified
environmental documents are herein incorporated by reference. All referenced documents are available for review
at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
All of the checklist items were addressed above for the Phase Ill project based on the analysis in the 2012 Master
Plans EIR. Where appropriate, the EIR analysis was updated to reflect project-specific conditions.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF are based on mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF from the 2012
Master Plans EIR. These measures were slightly modified to be project-specific.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-67
geplember 19, 2012
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 SAN DAG for the
Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. March. Available
at http://www.sandag.org/index.asp ?projectid=97 &fuseaction=projects.detail
Atkins. 2012a. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water
Master Plans Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2012021006. Available on-file at
the City of Carlsbad.
Atkins. 2012b. California Historical Resources Information System Client In-House Records Search, South Coastal
Information Center. January 30.
Burwasser, G. 2010, Paleontological Resources Evaluation of Vallecitos Water District, San Diego County, California,
October 28.
California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Report Protocol, Version 3.1. January.
California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2010. Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program -San Diego County Important Farmland 2008. October.
California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2009. Williamson Act Program
-San Diego County Williamson Act Lands 2008. April 16.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012a. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), RareFind Version 3.1.0. August 2012 data.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and
Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base.
Sacramento, California. January.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. January.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012d. Special Animals. California Department of Fish and Game,
Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California. January.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2003. The Changing California: Forest and Range 2003
Assessment, Land Cover Map. Accessed January 25, 2011, available at
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/statewide/fvegwhr13_map.pdf
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2009. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. June 11.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (v7-12aug 8-10-12). Data
provided by the participants of CNPS. Accessed August 22, 2012, available at
http:// en ps. web.a pl us. net/cgi-bi n/i nv /inventory .cgi
City of Carlsbad. 1996. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2010 Amendments.
August 14. On-file at the City of Carlsbad and available at
http://www. ca rl s bad ca .gov/services/ d epa rtm e nts/p la n n i ng/Docu m ents/LCPA. pdf
City of Carlsbad. 1997. Vegetation Community Data Provided by City of Carlsbad GIS. Data available at the City of
Carlsbad.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-68
&eplember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
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/publicati onid/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?client1D=16245&stateid=9&statename=California
City of Carlsbad. 2011c. SDGE Energy FY 07 /08 With Facility ID, Cost, and Usage. Provided by Elzbieta Karczewski on
December 6, 2011.
City of Oceanside. 2002. City of Oceanside General Plan, Environmental Resource Management Element. June.
City of Vista. 2011. Vista General Plan 2030 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009121028).
December.
County of San Diego (County). 2009. San Diego County General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.
SCH#2002111067.
County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group. 2009. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining
Significance -Paleontological Resources. January 15.
County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. 2012. Draft County of San Diego Guidelines for
Determining Significance. June 20.
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program -San Diego County Important Farmland 2006. August.
Dudek. 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Water and Sewer Master Plans Updates. SCH
#2003051014. October.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. August.
Kennedy, M.P., and S.S. Tan. 2002. Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' X 60' Quadrangle, California. California
Geologic Survey, Sacramento.
Nett Technologies Inc. 2010. Diesel Emissions FAQ: What are diesel emissions? Accessed January 5, 2011, available
at http://www.nett.ca/faq/diesel-1. html
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. April 22, 2009.
Accessed November 3, 2010, available at http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/2009-RAQS.pdf
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2011. 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Report for San Diego
County. September 28.
San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG). 2008. Final 2008 Congestion Management Program Update.
November.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2004. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport,
Carlsbad, California. October 4.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-69
~splsmber 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012c. Species Status Page. Available at
http://www.fws.gov/ carlsbad/SpeciesStatuslist/CFWO _Speci es_Status_List. htm
Biological Resource Database and Literature Review
The following provides a summarized list of the primary resources consulted for the preparation of the biological
resource analysis.
Databases
■ California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB;
CDFG 2012a);
■ California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2012);
■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2012a); and
■ USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2012b).
Literature Review
■ City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water
Master Plans Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Atkins 2012a);
■ Final Carlsbad Multiple Habitat Conservatior, Program (MHCP) Subarea Plan, herein referred to as the
"Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP)", including regional mapping data for vegetation communities
and conservation areas (City of Carlsbad 1997, 2004, 2011a);
■ Final MHCP Plan (AMEC et al. 2003);
■ CDFG State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFG 2012b);
■ CDFG Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFG 2012c);
■ CDFG Special Animals List (CDFG 2012d); and
■ USFWS Species Lists for San Diego County (USFWS 2012c).
List of Mitigating Measures
To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the
development of the proposed project.
Biological Resources
Bio-lA Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including raptors,
protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code, the CMWD shall enforce the following:
Prior to construction activities requiring the removal. pruning. or damage of any trees. shrubs. and man-
made structures (e.g .• buildings. bridges, etc.) actiYe Rests er aA'f tree pr1::1AiAg er reFAe·,al eperatieAs
during the priFAe AestiA~general breeding seasons, that being from March 1§ te May 3Q January 15 to
September 15, the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey shall s1::1r.rey
the trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction.
The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular
project component.sf tree reFAm,,al er pr1::1AiAg.
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 f½e tree pr1::1AiAg er reFAa¥al aperatieAs caA occur
until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have
fledged the nestYa€ated or until the end of the pl'iffie-general breeding season, whichever occurs later. -IA
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-70
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
I Bio-1B
Bio-lC
Bio-1D
Bio-lE
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
aaaitioA, 13rior to aA'( tree reFAoYal or 13r1:JAiAg 013erati0As 13ro13osea 01:Jtsiae of tl=rn 13riFAe AestiAg seasoA
01:Jt withiA the 13erioel of JaA1:Jary lS to Se13teFAeer lS, aA qualified biologist shall confirm, in writing, that
• no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction activities.
Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the
City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans.
Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, §..2, ES
5, §..8, and §..9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to
an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or
habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to
perform a pre-construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project
construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction
for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project plans
that clearly depict the construction work limits, including construction staging and storage areas, in order
to determine which specific portion(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space areas
during the pre-construction survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of the
adjacent open space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the likelihood
for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica
ca/ifornica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the area. The pre-
construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior to construction in order to verify the
need for additional construction measures proposed within Bio-lC through Bio-lF.
Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-
1B that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat
potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the
installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved
limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the
approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of
construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem
has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon
completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City
Planner prior to and concurrent with construction.
Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15
to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher, migratory
songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud
construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting
site) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15
through September 15).
If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the project could result
in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD
shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be
present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area
potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and
confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional
protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or
CDFG within 24 hours of its occurrence.
Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B
that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially
suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design final project construction staging areas such
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-71
gep*ember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
Bio-lF
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall
receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of
equipment outside of the project boundaries.
Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-1B that the
project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable
for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings
to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization
requirements.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall
provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of California to assess soil conditions for the
potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated
soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance
with DEH requirements.
Haz-2 Construction Worker Health and Safety Work Plan. Prior to construction of ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, or ES
18, CMWD shall have a project-specific health and safety work plan prepared and distributed to the
construction workers to address the potential exposure to hazardous materials associated with working
with or near contaminated soil. This work plan shall comply with all County of San Diego DEH work
plan requirements including Community Health and Safety Planning to address physical hazards, site
security, management of soil and water, and monitoring equipment. A description of engineering
controls and measures that would be put in place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to site
workers, public and the environment in the unlikely event of excavating contaminated soil from the
construction area shall be provided in the work plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The
engineering controls and measures to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered
shall include, but not be limited to the following:
1) An exclusion zone and support zone shall be established prior to start and during excavation
activities. No unauthorized personnel shall be allowed in these zones. Personnel authorized to
work in these zones shall have the required training and qualifications including OSHA HAZWOPER
training.
2) Written notifications shall be posted on the perimeter fencing in advance of start of excavation to
notify the general public and hotel staff/operators of the nature and duration of work activities.
The postings shall also include emergency contact names and telephone numbers.
3) No eating, drinking or smoking shall be allowed within the exclusion or support zones.
4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment including gloves, dust masks
or respirators, hard hats, steel toed boots, Tyvek0 protective clothing, eye shield and ear plugs or
ear muffs.
5) A decontamination zone shall be established for site workers to use prior to exiting the exclusion
zone.
6) All excavated soil shall be underlain and covered by plastic or Visqueen ™ ,if stored on site, to
prevent or reduce off-gassing into the atmosphere and to protect the stockpile from erosion due
to storm runoff. If on-site temporary storage becomes necessary, the stockpiles shall be placed
downwind downstream of any sensitive receptors in the area.
7) All work shall stop if ambient air concentrations exceed acceptable thresholds as approved by the
San Diego County DEH, and excavation shall be backfilled with inert soil or other material until
concentration drop back to normal.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-72
~op!ombor 19, 2Ql 2
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 _d~ [ ~~✓ Date
Printed Name
I ATKINS
o/;J/J_;iw_ E Plvmmt'r
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-73
~oplombor 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
I J\TKINS
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-74
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
~eplember 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
v>P
Appendix A
Regulatory Compliance and
Project Design and Construction Features
Regulatory Compliance
Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to
various environmental topics, such as the following.
Air Quality
During construction activities for proposed project components, CMWD would comply with San Diego Air Pollution
Control District Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. Rule 55 requires the following:
1. No person shall engage in construction or demolition activity in a manner that discharges visible dust
emissions into the atmosphere beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than
3 minutes in any 60 minute period; and
2. Visible roadway dust as a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track-
out/carry-out shall be minimized by the use of effective trackout/carry-out and erosion control measures
listed in Rule 55 that apply to the project or operation. These measures include track-out grates or gravel
beds at each egress point; wheel-washing at each egress during muddy conditions; soil binders, chemical
soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; watering for dust control; and using secured tarps or
cargo covering, watering, or treating of transported material for outbound transport trucks.
Biological Resources
Prior to construction activities for projects located within the boundaries of the city, and where it has been
demonstrated that the project could result in impacts to biological resources addressed in the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities, including HMP Species, Narrow Endemic Species, HMP
Habitats, Existing and Proposed HMP Hardline Preserve Areas, Special Resource Areas, and HMP Core and Linkage
Areas, as defined in the HMP, the CMWD would demonstrate how implementation of the project would comply
with the requirements of the HMP, including the established conservation goals and objectives of the HMP, and
the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified for protected resources. The City would use its
land-use regulatory authority to fully implement the provisions of the HMP during project review, and would
follow the project processing implementation procedures as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.210,
Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements.
Cultural Resources
During construction activities, CMWD would comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California
State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, upon unintentional discovery or disturbance of human remains. California
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance will occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native American, the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be met in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will
conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD), if any,
identified by the NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to
provide technical assistance to the MLD, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human
remains.
Geology
The design of the project components would implement the relevant requirements of the Uniform Building Code
(UBC), the California Building Code (CBC), and the Standards and Specifications for Public Works Construction, as
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-1
Soplombor 19, 2012
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 of the California Code of Regulations
[CCR]) and in Section A33 of the CBC. California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117,
"Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," provides guidance for the evaluation and
mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for project components within designated zones of required
investigations.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction activities would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California's Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
RWQCB, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA
and the NP DES 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 NP DES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPbES No. CAS01087S8, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of
Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San
Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4
permit). Project components not falling within the triggering coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be
subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to
enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For Phase Ill project covered under the
General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD
would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prescribing Best Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring, inspection,
and record keeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water
discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in surface water runoff. The
implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit generally require that storm water control
measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their compliance under the permit. BMPs (e.g., berms,
straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control
the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff, and may include measures to
minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limit or prevent various pollutants from entering
surface water runoff, such as the following:
■ Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to that which will be actively under construction in
the near term, new land disturbance during the rainy season is minimized, and disturbance to sensitive
areas or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized.
■ Stabilizing disturbed areas. Temporary stabilization of disturbed soils is provided whenever active
construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is provided by finish
grading and permanent landscaping.
■ Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of natural
channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is
managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels.
■ Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the
project components and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents.
■ Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are
detained (e.g., siltation basins).
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-2
l>ef)*ember 19, 2012
November 14. 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.
Agency/Department
State Agencies
State Water Resources
Control Board, Regional
Water Quality Control
Board
California Coastal
Commission
California Dei;iartment
of Transi;iortation
Local Agencies
City of Vista
City of Carlsbad
City of Oceanside
I ATKINS
Table 1 Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals
Permit/ Approval Action Associated With or Required For
General Construction Activity Storm Water Storm Water discharges associated with
Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 DWQ construction activity.
Waste Discharge Requirements (Water Code Discharge of waste that might affect groundwater
13000 et seq.) or surface water (point/nonpoint-source) quality.
Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a deferred
certification area in the coastal zone.
Encroachment Permit {California Streets and Consider issuance of i;iermits to cross state
Highways Code Sections 660 et seg.) highways.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Discretionary Permit Required for construction activities within the city
requiring discretionary approval.
Required for potential impacts to sensitive species
Habitat Management Plan Take Permit or habitats covered by the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan.
Coastal Development Permit Required for projects located within a coastal zone.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Conformity with Zoning Required for construction within city ROW.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-3
Soplombor 19. 2012
November 14. 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 Ill project would
incorporate the following project design features.
Aesthetics
The following measures would be implemented into the design and construction of the Phase Ill project to
minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase Ill project:
■ Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal.
■ Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to those depicted on construction drawings.
■ All roadway features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, etc) and structures within state and
private rights-of-way will be protected, maintained in a temporary condition, or restored.
■ Disturbed areas will be restored following construction consistent with original site conditions and
surrounding vegetation. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by
CMWD or the City, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by CMWD or the City
to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CIP pipeline projects that would require trenching or
that would require the temporary removal of concrete or asphalt, the disturbed area will be repaved to
be consistent with the existing material.
Air Quality
The following BMPs would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant
emissions during construction of Phase Ill project:
■ Water or dust control agents will be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt stockpiles
as necessary to prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne. All soil to be stockpiled
over 30 days will be protected with a secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent windblown dust.
■ Covering/tarping will occur on all vehicles hauling dirt or spoils on public roadways unless additional
moisture is added to prevent material blow-off during transport.
■ Soil handling operations will be suspended when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. The construction
supervisor will have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating wind speed.
■ Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadway will be swept
or vacuumed and disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension of particulate matter
caused by vehicle movement. During periods of soil export or import, when there are more than six trips
per hour, dirt removal from paved surfaces will be done at least twice daily.
■ Disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as work in the area is complete.
■ Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply wherever feasible, to avoid or minimize
the use of engine-driven generators.
■ Air filters on construction equipment engines will be maintained in clean condition according to
manufacturers' specifications.
■ The construction contractor will comply with an approved traffic control plan to reduce non-project traffic
congestion impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with existing traffic and the prevention
of truck queuing around local sensitive receptors will be incorporated into this plan.
■ Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences.
■ Trucks and equipment will not idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-4
September 19, 2012
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.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
The following procedure for unintentional disturbance of cultural resources will be implemented to minimize
impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources during construction of Phase Ill project:
■ If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during CIP project construction, or if evidence of an
archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered, all ground-disturbing activity
will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD
to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist retained by the City or CMWD
for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. No further grading will occur in the area of the
discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological
artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation will be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by
the City or CMWD where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Geology and Soils
The following measures will be implemented into the construction and operation of Phase Ill project to minimize
potential risks from geologic and soil hazards:
■ A site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each CIP
project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil, 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:
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-5
lloplombor 19, 2012
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 densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics.
For landslides, implement applicable techniques such as stabilization; remedial grading and removal
of landslide debris; or avoidance.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following measures would be implemented into the construction to minimize potential effects related to
hazards and hazardous materials:
■ Fire safety information will be disseminated to construction crews during regular safety meetings. Fire
management techniques will be applied during project construction as deemed necessary by the lead
agency and depending on-site vegetation and vegetation of surrounding areas.
■ A brush management plan will be incorporated during project construction by the City, CMWD, or a
contractor, as necessary. Construction within areas of dense foliage during dry conditions will be avoided,
when feasible.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of project components to
minimize potential effects to hydrology and water quality:
■ A construction spill contingency plan will be prepared for new facilities in accordance with County
Department of Environmental Health regulations and retained on site by the construction manager. If soil
is contaminated by a spill, the soil will be properly removed and transported to a legal disposal site.
■ If groundwater is encountered and dewatering is required, then the groundwater will be disposed of by
pumping to the sanitary sewer system or discharging to the storm drain system according to the
conditions of the appropriate discharge permit.
Noise
The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of the project components to
minimize noise effect to surrounding neighborhoods:
■ Heavy equipment will be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences.
■ Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators and compressors, will be maintained in proper
operating condition and will be equipped with manufacturers' standard noise control devices or better
(e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging, and/or engine enclosures).
■ Construction work, including on-site equipment maintenance and repair, will be limited to the hours
specified in the noise ordinance of the affected jurisdiction.
■ Electrical power will be supplied from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, in order to avoid or
minimize the use of engine-driven generators.
■ Staging areas for construction equipment will be located as far as practicable from residences.
■ Operating equipment will be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise
regulations.
■ If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices will be
powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine.
■ CMWD or their construction contractors will provide advance notice, between two and four weeks prior
to construction, by mail to all residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. For projects
that would require pile driving or blasting, noticing will be provided to all residents or property owners
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-6
~oplombor 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
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 of the Phase Ill project to minimize traffic
effects to surrounding neighborhoods:
■ Prior to construction, the City will prepare a traffic control plan and coordinate with the cities of
Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos to address traffic during construction of project components within the
public right-of-ways of the affected jurisdiction(s), including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. The
traffic control plan will include signage and flagmen when necessary to allow the heavy equipment to
utilize residential streets. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
school hours and emergency service providers regarding construction times.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-7
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
I J\TKINS
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page A-8
Sopfombor 19, 2Ql 2
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
Community Rank11> Rank<21 Habitat Group<3> Mitigation Ratio<41
Non-native grassland G4 54 E 0.5:1
Valley needlegrass grassland Gl 53.1 B 3:1
Diegan coastal sage scrub G3 53.1 C 2:1
Diegan coastal sage -chaparral scrub G3 53.2 C 2:1
Chamise chaparral G4 54 D 1:1
Scrub oak chaparral G3 53.3 D 1:1
Southern maritime chaparral Gl 51.l B 3:1
Southern mixed chaparral G4 54 D 1:1
Coast live oak woodland G4 54 B 3:1
Southern coastal live oak riparian forest G3 54 A 3:1 (No Net Loss)
Southern riparian forest G4 54
Southern riparian scrub G3 53.2
Coastal and valley freshwater marsh G3 52.1
San Diego mesa claypan vernal pool G2 52.1 A 5:1
(1)
(2)
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 risk of
extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. Estimated 6-20 viable
occurrences or 1,000-3,000 individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres. G3 = Vulnerable-At moderate risk of extinction due to a
restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
Estimated 21-80 occurrences or 3,000-10,000 individuals or 10,000-50,000 acres. G4 = Apparently Secure-Uncommon
but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. This rank is clearly lower than G3 but
factors exist to cause some concern; i.e., there is some threat, or somewhat narrow habitat.
State Rank-The state rank refer to the imperilment status only within California's State boundaries.
Sl = Critically Imperiled-Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) such as
very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. Less than 6 occurrences or less
than 1,000 individuals or less than 2,000 acres. Sl.1 = very threatened; Sl.2 = threatened; Sl.3 = no current threats
known.
S2 = Imperiled-Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines,
or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. Estimated 6-20 occurrences or
1,000-3,000 individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres. S2.1 = very threatened; S2.2 = threatened; S2.3 = no current threats
known. S3 = Vulnerable-Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer),
recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. Estimated 21-80 occurrences or
3,000-10,000 individuals or 10,000 -50,000 acres. S3.1 = very threatened; S3.2 = threatened; S3.3 = no current threats
known; S4 = Apparently Secure-Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other
factors.
l3l MHCP Rank-Habitat types located within the planning area of the MHCP have been assigned to Groups A - F based on the
sensitivity and range of habitat within the planning area boundaries. Generally, Group A habitats are the most sensitive
and Group F habitats are the least sensitive.
141 Mitigation ratios may increase or decrease depending on the resources present and where the impact and mitigation is
proposed, as approved by the regulatory agencies and/or local jurisdiction in which the impact and mitigation occurs.
Source: CNDDB 2012; CNPS 2010; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al. 1998
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-1
September 19, 2012
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State CNPS
Common Name Scientific Name Status<1> Status<2> List<3> General Habitat Associations
NON-VASCULAR
bottle liverwort Sphaerocarpos drewei lB.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
California screw moss Tortu/a californica lB.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland.
Campbell's liverwort Geothallus tuberosus 1B.1 Coastal scrub, vernal pools.
coastal triquetrella Triquetrella ca/ifornica 18.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub.
Shevock's copper moss Schizymenium shevockii 1B.2 Cismontane woodland.
ashy spike-moss Selaginel/a cinerascens 4.2 Coastal sage scrub, chaparral.
Fern
California adder's-tongue Ophioglossum lusitanicum 4.2 Chaparral, grasslands, vernal pools.
fern ssp. californicum
Angiosperms -Monocotyledons
California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica FE SE lB.1 Vernal pools.
Orcutt's brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii 1B.1 Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland,
closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland, chaparral, meadows.
San Diego goldenstar Mui/la clevelandii 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
Shaw's agave Agoveshawii 2.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub.
thread-leaved brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia FT SE 18.1 Cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools.
Angiosperms -Dicotyledons
8lochman's dudleya Dudleya b/ochmaniae ssp. 18.1 Coastal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, valley
blochmaniae and foothill grassland.
California adolphia Adolphia californica 2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
chaparral sand-verbena Abronia vil/osa var. ourito 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
cliff spurge Euphorbia misera 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub.
Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia globrato ssp. 18.1 Coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and
coulteri foothill grassland, vernal pools.
Dean's milk-vetch Astrogalus deanei 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest.
decumbent goldenbush /socoma menziesii var. 18.2 Coastal scrub.
decumbens
Del Mar manzanita Arctostaphylos glandu/osa FE 18.1 Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest.
ssp. crassifo/ia
Del Mar Mesa sand aster Corethrogyne filaginifolia 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
var. linifolia
dwarf burr (San Diego) Ambrosia pumi/a FE 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
ambrosia grassland.
Encinitas baccharis Baccharis vanessae FT SE 18.1 Chaparral.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-2
September 19, 2012
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
Engelmann oak
Gambel's water cress
little mousetail
many-stemmed dudleya
Moran's navarretia
mud nama
Nuttall's scrub oak
Orcutt's hazardia
Orcutt's linanthus
Orcutt's spineflower
Palmer's goldenbush
Parry's tetracoccus
prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
Rainbow manzanita
Robinson's pepper-grass
round-leaved filaree
San Diego barrel cactus
San Diego bur-sage
San Diego button-celery
San Diego marsh-elder
San Diego sagewort
San Diego thorn-mint
smooth tarplant
snake cholla
J\TKINS
Federal State CNPS
Scientific Name Status11> Status12> List131 General Habitat Associations
Quercus enge/mannii 4.2 Chaparral, coast live oak woodland,
grassland.
Nasturtium gambelii FE ST 18.1 Marshes and swamps.
Myosurus minimus ssp. 3.1 Vernal pools.
apus
Oudleya multicaulis 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland.
Navarretia fossalis FT 1B.l Vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes and
swamps, playas.
Nama stenocarpum 2.2 Marshes and swamps.
Quercus dumosa 1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral,
coastal scrub.
Hazardia orcuttii FC ST 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Linanthus orcuttii 1B.3 Chaparral.
Chorizanthe orcuttiana FE SE 1B.1 Coastal scrub, chaparra I, closed-cone
coniferous forest.
Ericameria palmeri ssp. 2.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral.
palmeri
Tetracoccus dioicus 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Navarretia prostrata 1B.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools.
Arctostaphylos 1B.1 Chaparral.
rainbowensis
Lepidium virginicum var. 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
robinsonii
California macrophylla 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill
grassland.
Ferocactus viridescens 2.1 Chapparal, Diegan coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
Ambrosia chenopodiifolia 2.1 Coastal scrub mostly associated with
maritime succulent scrub.
Eryngium aristulatum var. FE SE 1B.1 Vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and
parishii foothill grassland.
Iva hayesiana 2.2 Marshes and swamps, playas.
Artemisia palmeri 4.2 Riparian, wetland, adjacent uplands.
Acanthomintha ilicifolia FT SE 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
Centromadia pungens ssp. 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, chenopod
laevis scrub, meadows, playas, riparian woodland.
Opuntia californica var. 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
californica
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-3
September 19, 2012
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State CNPS
Common Name Scientific Name Status<11 Status<21 List<3I General Habitat Associations
southern tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. 1B.1 Marshes and swamps (margins), valley and
australis foothill grassland.
Southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus var. 4.2 Riparian, wetlands, vernal pools.
/eopoldii
summer holly Comarostaphylis 1B.2 Chaparral.
diversifolia ssp.
diversifolia
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 lB.l Coastal scrub/alluvial ephemeral washes
with adjacent coastal scrub, chaparral, or
sycamore woodland.
(ll Federal Status -FE= Federally Endangered; FT= Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD= Delisted
(21 State Status -SE= State Endangered; ST= State Threatened
(3I CNPS-lA = Plants presumed extinct in California; 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;
2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere; 3 = Plants in need of more
information; 4 = Plants of limited distribution. x.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened or
high degree and immediacy of threat). x.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened).
x.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
Source: CDFG 2012; CNPS 2012; Consortium 2010; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al.1998
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill 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
INVERTEBRATES
Crustaceans
Riverside fairy shrimp
San Diego fairy shrimp
Insects
Hermes copper butterfly
Harbison's dun skipper
Monarch butterfly
AMPHIBIANS
Arroyo toad
Coast Range newt
Western spadefoot
REPTILES
Coast (San Diego) horned
lizard
Coast patch-nosed snake
Coastal western whiptail
Coronado skink
Northern red-diamond
rattlesnake
Orange-throated whiptail
Rosy boa
San Diego ringneck snake
I\TKINS
Federal State
Scientific Name Status<1l Status<21 General Habitat Associations
Streptocephalus woottoni FE Found in areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins
in grassland and coastal sage scrub habitats.
Branchinecta FE Vernal pools.
sandiegonensis
Lycaena hermes Found in southern mixed chaparral and coastal sage
scrub at western edge of Laguna mountains.
Euphyes vestries harbisoni Riparian woodland, riparian scrub, oak woodland.
Danaus plexippus Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves, such as
eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and cypress trees where
nectar and water sources are available.
Bufo californicus FE SSC Semi-arid regions near washes, rivers, or intermittent
streams, including valley-foothill and desert riparian
areas and desert washes.
Taricha torosa torosa SSC Lives in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1
km to breed in ponds, reservoirs, coastal drainages,
or slow moving streams.
Spea hammondii SSC Occurs primarily in ponds located in grassland
habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill
hardwood woodlands.
Phrynosoma coronatum SSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral in arid and
(blainvillii population) semi-arid climate conditions.
Salvadora hexalepis SSC Brushy or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern
virgu/tea California.
Aspidoscelis tigris Found in deserts and semiarid areas with sparse
stejnegeri vegetation and open areas and in woodland and
riparian areas.
Eumeces skiltonianus SSC Found in grassland, chaparral, pinyon-juniper and
interparietalis juniper sage woodland, and pine-oak and pine
forests.
Crotalus ruber ruber SSC Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland, and desert
areas from coastal San Diego County to the eastern
slopes of the mountains.
Aspidoscelis hyperythra SSC Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and
valley-foothill hardwood habitats.
Charina trivirgata Found in desert and chaparral habitats from the
coast to the Mojave. Prefers moderate to dense
vegetation and rocky cover.
Diadophis punctatus Found in open, fairly rocky areas and in moist areas
similis near intermittent streams.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-5
September 19, 2012
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
Silvery legless lizard
Southwestern pond turtle
Two-striped garter snake
BIRDS
American peregrine
falcon
Bank swallow
Belding's savannah
sparrow
Bell's sage sparrow
Burrowing owl
California horned lark
Coastal cactus wren
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Cooper's hawk
Double-crested
cormorant
Ferruginous hawk
Golden eagle
Grasshopper sparrow
large-billed savannah
sparrow
Least Bell's vireo
Least bittern
I\TKINS
Federal State
Scientific Name Status<11 Status121 General Habitat Associations
Annie/la pu/chra 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.
Actinemys marmorota SSC Inhabits permanent or nearly permanent bodies of
pa/Iida water in many habitat types below 6,000 feet.
Thamnophis hammondii SSC Found in or near permanent fresh water and often
along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.
Falco peregrinus anatum FD SE Found near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water or
on cliffs, banks, dunes, or mounds.
Ripario ripario ST Nests primarily in riparian and other lowland habitats
west of the desert.
Passerculus SE Inhabits coastal salt marshes.
sandwichensis beldingi
Amphispiza be/Ii be/Ii WL Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense stands
of chamise. Found in coastal sage scrub in south of
range.
Athene cunicularia SSC Open, dry annual, or perennial grasslands, deserts
and scrublands characterized by low-growing
vegetation.
Eremophila alpestris actia WL Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows,
open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali
flats.
Campylorhynchus SSC Coastal sage scrub with tall Opuntia cactus for
brunneicapillus nesting and roosting.
sandiegensis
Polioptila ca/ifornica FT SSC Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on mesas,
californica and on slopes.
Accipiter cooperii WL Open, interrupted, or marginal type woodland. Nest
sites mainly found in riparian growths of deciduous
trees in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains.
Phalacrocorax auritus WL Found on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along
lake margins in the interior of the State.
Buteo regalis WL Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low
foothills, and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats.
Aquila chrysaetos FD SE,SFP Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats,
and desert.
Ammodramus SSC Favors native grasslands with a mix of grasses, forbs,
savanna rum and scattered shrubs.
Passerculus SSC Salt marsh.
sandwichensis rostratus
Vireo be/Iii pusi/lus FE SE Summer resident of southern California in low
riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms;
below 2000 ft.
lxobrychus exilis SSC Found in marshlands and borders of ponds and
reservoirs which provide ample cover.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-6
September 19, 2012
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
Light-footed clapper rail
Loggerhead shrike
Long-eared owl
Northern harrier
Osprey
Prairie fa Icon
Southern California
rufous-crowned sparrow
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Tricolored blackbird
Western snowy plover
White-faced ibis
White-tailed kite
Yellow warbler
Yellow-breasted chat
MAMMALS
American badger
Hoary bat
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Pacific pocket mouse
Pallid bat
/\TKINS
Federal State
Scientific Name Status111 Status121 General Habitat Associations
Roi/us longirostris levipes FE SE Sal marsh.
Lanius /udovicianus SSC Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyon-juniper, joshua
tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oasis', scrub
and washes.
Asio otus SSC Riparian bottomlands with tall willows, cottonwoods,
or coast live oaks adjacent to open land with ample
prey.
Circus cyaneus SSC Coastal salt and fresh-water marsh. Nest and forage
in grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to
mountain marshes.
Pandion haliaetus WL Ocean shore, bays, fresh-water lakes, and larger
streams.
Falco mexicanus WL Inhabits dry, open terrain, either level or hilly.
Aimophila ruficeps WL Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed
canescens chaparral.
Empidonax trail/ii extimus FE SE Riparian woodlands.
Agelaius tricolor SSC Requires open water, protected nesting substrate,
and foraging area with available insect prey.
Charadrius alexandrinus FT SSC Sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large
nivosus alkali lakes.
Plegadis chihi WL Shallow fresh-water marsh.
£/anus leucurus SFP Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered
oaks and river bottom lands or marshes next to
deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging.
Dendroica petechia SSC Prefers riparian plant associations such as willows,
brewsteri cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for
nesting and foraging. Also, found in montane
shrubbery in open conifer forests.
lcteria virens SSC Summer resident that inhabits riparian thickets of
willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses.
Taxidea taxus SSC Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub,
forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils.
Lasiurus cinereus Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access
to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges
for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to
large trees.
Chaetodipus fa/lax fa/lax SSC Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, and
sagebrush.
Perognathus FE SSC Found within 4 km of the coast on fine-grained sandy
longimembris pacificus substrates in coastal sage scrub, coastal strand, and
river alluvium.
Antrozous pallidus SSC Found in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands,
and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-7
September 19, 2012
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name Status111 Status121 Geheral Habitat Associations
San Diego black-tailed Lepus californicus SSC Found in coastal sage scrub with intermediate
jackrabbit bennettii canopy stages of shrub habitats and open shrub/
herbaceous and tree/ herbaceous edges.
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida SSC Moderate to dense canopies of coastal scrub.
intermedia Abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes.
Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC Found in moist coastal forest to semi-desert
scrublands, near riparian areas and wetlands.
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC Found in many open and semi-arid to arid habitats,
californicus including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, and chaparral.
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevil/ii SSC Prefers riparian areas dominated by cottonwoods,
oaks, sycamores, and walnuts.
Western small-footed Myotis ciliolabrum Found in a wide range of habitats near water,
myotis including arid wooded, brushy uplands, and open
stands in forests and woodlands. Seeks cover in
caves, buildings, mines and crevices
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian,
desert washes, and palm oasis habitats.
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis Optimal habitats are open forests and woodlands
with sources of water over which to feed.
Southern mule deer Odocoi/eus hemionus Variety of habitats over a broad range.
111 Federal Status -FE= Federally Endangered; FT= Federally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD= Delisted
121 State Status-SE= State Endangered; ST= State Threatened; SFP = State Fully Protected; SSC= State Species of Special
Concern; WL = State Watch List
Source: CDFG 2012; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al. 1998
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page B-8
September 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
EXHIBIT 4
RESOLUTION NO. 1601
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD (CMWD), APPROVING AN ADDENDUM
TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PACKAGE, AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD TO ADVERTISE AND
RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE RECYCLED WATER PHASE Ill PIPELINE EXPANSION
SEGMENT 5, PROJECT NO. 5208-B.
EXHIBIT 1
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) Board of Directors of the City of
Carlsbad, California has determined it necessary, desirable, and in the public interest to install
approximately 1,400 linear feet of 8-inch diameter and 30,000 linear feet of 6-inch diameter polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) recycled water pipeline and 1,850 linear feet of 8-inch diameter and 4,100 linear feet of
6-inch PVC potable water pipeline; and
WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, equipment,
transportation, and other expenses necessary or incidental for the Recycled Water Phase Ill Pipeline
Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, have been prepared and are on file at CMWD and are
incorporated by reference herein; and
WHEREAS, an environmental impact assessment was conducted for the Phase Ill Recycled
Water Program, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program was approved by the Board through Resolution No. 1455, on Nov. 27, 2012;
WHEREAS, an Addendum to the MND and Supplemental Environmental Package including a
supplement to the federal cross cutter evaluation form was prepared to document the changes to the
project scope and it was determined that none of the requirements in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have been triggered, and all applicable mitigation
measures contained in the environmental documents have been incorporated into the construction
documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CMWD Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Supplemental
Environmental Package is hereby approved and attached hereto as Attachment A.
July 17, 2018 Item #4
3. That the plans, specifications and contract documents for the Recycled Water Phase Ill
Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, on file at CMWD are hereby approved.
4. That the secretary to the Board is hereby authorized and directed to publish, in accordance
with State law, a Notice to Contractors Inviting Bids for the construction of the Recycled Water Phase
Ill Pipeline Expansion Segment 5, Project No. 5208-B, in accordance with the plans, specifications, and
contract documents referred herein.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District of the City of Carlsbad on the 17th day of !!J..!y, 2018, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
M. Hall, K. Blackburn, M. Schumacher, C. Schumacher, M. Packard.
None.
None.
(SEAL)
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ATTACHMENT A
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Phase Ill Recyc led Water Project
Addendum to the Final Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
EIA 12-02
Marc h 30, 2018 I KJC-27
Prepared for:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
La Mesa. CA 91942
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ADDENDUM TO THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT
FINAL INITIAL STUDY /MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012
State Clearinghouse No. 2012091049
Prepared for:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
la Mesa, CA 91942
March 30, 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1. Introduction/Project Background ......................................................................................................... 1
2. Project Description and Location .......................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................................. 2
3. Purpose of the Addendum .................................................................................................................... 2
4. Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 4
Agriculture/Forestry Resources ................................................................................................................ 6
Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 8
Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 11
Geology/Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................................... 14
Hazards & Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................................. 15
Hydrology/Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 17
Land Use/Planning .................................................................................................................................. 18
Mineral Resou rces .................................................................................................................................. 20
Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Population and Housing .......................................................................................................................... 22
Public Services ......................................................................................................................................... 22
Recreation ............................................................................................................................................... 23
Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................................................ 23
Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................................. 24
Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................................ 25
5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 26
6. References .......................................................................................................................................... 27
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows Page
1 Pipeline Improvements .................................................................................................................... 2
2 Storage Tank Relocation .................................................................................................................. 2
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
A CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Final IS/MND
B Biological Resources Study Addendum
C Cultural Resource Inventory Addendum
CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
ii March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
1. Introduction/Project Background
This document is an Addendum to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration {Adopted
IS/MND) for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District {CMWD) Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Approved
Project; EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012, SCH No. 2012091049; CMWD 2012a). The project
evaluated potential impacts associated with implementation of Phase Ill of CMWD's 2012 Recycled
Water Master Plan (RWMP). The Adopted IS/MND tiered from the Program EIR (12-01) for the 2012 City
of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water Master
Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR 12-01; SCH No. 2012021006;
CMWD 2012b). Phase Ill proposed expanding the treatment capacity within the Carlsbad Water
Recycling Facility (CWRF) by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. In addition,
Phase Ill proposed the installation of 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocation or construction of a new
storage tank, conversion of existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofits of
landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations
throughout the project area. The Approved Project was adopted by the CMWD Board of Directors on
November 27, 2012 (CMWD Agenda Bill 760, Resolution No. 1433). The Program EIR (12-01) and
Adopted IS/MND (EIA 12-02), including supporting documents, are hereby incorporated by reference.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that potentially significant environmental Impacts could occur to
biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials; however, with the implementation of the
Project's mitigation measures impacts would be less than significant.
In 2013, subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MND, the CMWD prepared an Evaluation Form for
Environmental Review and Federal Coordination as part of the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) CEQA-Plus requirements and CMWD's Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (SRF
Program) application (CMWD 2013). The evaluation form concluded that the Approved Project would
not result in adverse effects associated with compliance with federal regulations.
2. Project Description and location
The CMW0 is currently proposing modifications (proposed modifications) to the Approved Project,
which is the subject of this Addendum. The proposed modifications include:
• Two extensions would be added to the Segment 5 pipelines; one extension would extend the
pipeline northeast on Tamarack Avenue; the other extension would branch off the Marron Road
pipeline north on Monroe Street (see Figure 1, Pipeline Improvements).
• An extension to the Segment 7 pipeline would be added on Tamarack Avenue that would
connect a gap in the previously prop_osed Segment 7 pipelines (see Figure 1).
• New potable water pipelines, ranging in size from 6-inches to 8-inches in diameter, would be
installed in the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (see Figure 1; hereafter
referred to as Palisades potable water pipelines and Flower Fields potable water pipelines). The
pipelines would be installed parallel to the existing potable water pipelines, which would be
abandoned in place.
• The LS-million gallon {MG) storage tank is proposed to be located on the vacant, pre-graded
pad southeast of the existing 8.5 MG storage tank on the D Tank site, near Black Rail Road (see
Figure 2, Storage Tank Relocotion). The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
1 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
adjacent to the site. This location is approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed tank
location. The proposed storage tank would have security lighting.
The proposed modifications would comply with applicable mitigation measures included in the Adopted
IS/MND (Attachment A), as well as the regulatory compliance and project design and construction
features included in the Adopted IS/MND (Appendix A of Attachment A). In addition, the proposed
modifications would implement a construction best management practice (BMP) to provide
archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas of the proposed modifications that intersect
with known cultural sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them.
Environmental Setting
The surrounding land uses for the extension to Segment 5 along Tamarack Avenue are single-family
residences to the east and a Boat/RV storage facility to the west. The alignment is at an elevation of
approximately 235 to 268 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
The extension to Segment 5 on Monroe Street is surrounded on both sides by commercial development,
with the North County Plaza to the west and The Shoppes at Carlsbad to the east. Buena Vista Creek is
located approximately 50 feet north of the northern end of the pipeline. The alignment is at an elevation
of approximately 21 to 23 feet AMSL.
The Tamarack Avenue extension for Segment 7 has single-family residences and open space adjacent on
both sides of the pipeline. The alignment is at an elevation ranging from approximately 179 to
203 feet AMSL.
The Palisades potable water pipelines are located within internal roadways for single-family residences.
The area is surrounded by single-family residences. The neighborhood is bisected by Tamarack Avenue
and adjacent to part of the existing Segment 5 alignment. The elevation of the pipeline alignment would
range from 100 feet to 150 feet AMSL.
The Flower Fields potable water pipelines are located within internal roadways for multi-family
residences. Open space is located to north and east and multi-family residences are located to the south
and west. The area is surrounded by single-family residences. The neighborhood is adjacent to part of
the existing Segment 5 alignment. The elevation of the pipeline alignment would range from 100 feet to
120 feet AMSL.
The surrounding land uses for the storage tank include single-family residences to the east and south,
other existing CMWD potable and recycled water storage reservoirs to the west, and a church to the
north. The site is at an elevation of approximately 375 feet AMSL.
3. Purpose of the Addendum
As outlined in CEOA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an Addendum to a previously certified MND may be
prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described
in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred. The CMWD has
determined that an Addendum to the Adopted IS/MND is the appropriate level of environmental review
under CEOA for the proposed modifications.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
2 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
---Proposed Modification to Segmetit 5
Proposed Modifk:.atlon to Segment 7
~ _____ E-3 __ _;_2,~ Feet f
HELIX ~ Pf1Ml'1 Pipeline Improvements
Figure 1
July 17, 2018 Item #4
~ ____ E--3 ___ 150_ Feet f
HELIX
£~ral Ptlrvtl" Storage Tank Relocation
Figure 2
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Under CEQA, an Addendum to a previously adopted IS/MND may be prepared by either a lead or
responsible agency if the conditions described above are satisfied. As a result, once an IS/M ND has been
certified, a subsequent or supplemental MND may only be prepared if one of the following conditions
has been met (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)):
(1) Substantial changes ore proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous MND due to the Involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous MNO due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous MND wos adopted,
shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed In the previous
MND;
8. Significant effects previously examined wlll be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous MND;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those in the
previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
This Addendum has been prepared by the CMWD because the construction and operation of the
proposed modifications is consistent with the overall project evaluated in the Adopted IS/MND and does
not require major revisions to t he Adopted IS/MNO due to new significant impacts or substantial
increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The anticipated environmental
impacts of the proposed modifications, as explained in detail in the following analysis, have been
analyzed and mitigated accordingly in the Adopted IS/MNO, and there have been no new circumstances
since that time that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. As evaluated
in the supporting analysis of this Addendum, mitigation measures that were previously identified in the
Adopted IS/MND would continue to ensure that impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can
be included in or attached to the Adopted IS/MND. Prior to its consideration of the proposed
modifications, the CMWD will review and consider this Addendum together with the Adopted IS/MNO
when making a decision regarding the proposed modifications.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
3 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
4. Environmental Analysis
Documents containing the environmental analysis supporting the CMWO's action in approving the
proposed modifications include the Adopted IS/MNO and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP), as well as updated Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2018; Attachment B) and the Cultural
Resources Addendum Report (ASM 2018; Attachment C).
This Addendum analyzes all 18 environmental issue areas that were included in the Adopted IS/MNO,
plus Tribal Cultural Resources, and discusses whether the proposed modifications described above
would trigger significance criteria identified in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163, in each of
these areas.
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture/Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology/Water Quality
• Land Use/Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings
For each environmental issue area, t hi.s Addendum provides a comparative analysis of the impacts
presented in the Adopted IS/MNO. The analysis includes a determination regarding the occurrence of
new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Finally, an analysis
is presented to determine whether there are any changed circumstances or new information relative to
the proposed modifications. For each environmental issue area, the following is provided to conduct this
comparative analysis:
1. Previous Analysis
2. Analysis of the Revised Project
3. Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications
are Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
4. Conclusion
The following environmental analysis supports the CMWO's determination that approval and
implementation of the proposed modifications would not result in new significant environmental
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously di.sclosed impacts covered under the
CMW0 Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
4 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Adopted IS/MND and related MMRP. This environmental analysis is subject to all applicable mitigation
measures outlined in the Adopted IS/MND and MMRP.
The following presents the environmental analysis of impacts associated with the proposed
modifications. In instances where the impacts resulting from several proposed modification components
would be similar, their corresponding analyses have been grouped together. In instances where impacts
differ by proposed modification component, they are discussed separately.
Aesthetics
Previous Analysis
Analysis of aesthetic impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 1,
pages IS-22 through IS-23. The Adopted 1$/MND concluded that expansion and relocation of the storage
tank site would not result in temporary construction impacts because ii would be isolated from public
view. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that aesthetic impacts from construction activities for the
expansion segments would be a substantial adverse change in existing visual character. In the Adopted
IS/MND, the CMWD committed to the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted
IS/MND (Attachment A) to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding neighborhoods,
which includes removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing setting, and restoring
disturbed areas following construction. With implementation of these measures, construction visual
impacts would be less than significant.
No operational visual impacts were determined to occur as the pipelines would be below ground. The
storage tank would be painted with low-glare coatings so that reflection is kept to a minimum. No new
lighting or glare sources were proposed. Further, the tank would be located within an existing facility
that contains two 1.5-MG tanks and an 8.5-MG tank (the D-tank site), therefore it would be consistent
with the character of the site.
Analysis of the Revised Project
Pipeline Improvements
The pipeline improvements would result in similar impacts to the expansion segments analyzed in the
Adopted IS/MND. As the pipelines will be installed below-ground, no visual impacts would occur after
construction.
Similar to the Adopted IS/MND, aesthetic impacts from construction activities for the pipeline
improvements would result in a substantial adverse change in existing visual character. The proposed
modifications would implement the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND
to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding neighborhoods. With implementation of
these measures, impacts would be less than significant from construction of the pipeline improvements.
Storage Tonk Site Relocation
The storage tank would be located within a graded pad directly southeast of the existing 8.S•MG steel
tank, approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed site. The currently proposed location is in
an area more visible to public view from Poinsettia Lane and Fisherman Drive than the location analyzed
in the Adopted IS/MND and would likely maintain a similar visibility from New Crest Court and Black Rail
CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
5 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Road as the previous location. However, the tank would be located next to multiple storage tanks of
similar or larger bulk and scale t hat are currently visible from the surrounding roadways. Therefore, the
relocated storage tank would be consistent with the existing visual character and quality of the area,
and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, construction activities may be more visible to
viewers from Poinsettia Lane than the location analyzed in the Adopted IS/MNO. As with the pipeline
extensions in the Adopted IS/MNO, the construction features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted
IS/MNO would be implemented to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to surrounding
neighborhoods, w hich includes removal of construction debris, limiting disturbance of the existing
setting, and restoring disturbed areas following construction. Security lighting would also be provided;
to minimize lighting impacts, the lighting would be shielded down and would not spill into the adjacent
residential properties. With implementation of t hese measures, construction visual impacts from the
storage tank would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which t he Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to visual or aesthetic resources. No substantial changes in the aesthetic or visual environment
have occurred since adoption of the IS/MND, and no substantial new sensitive receptors or scenic
resources have been identified within the vicinity of the proposed modifications.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in previously
identified aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Implementation of
construction features identified In the Adopted IS/MNO would ensure that temporary and permanent
visual impacts would remain less than significant. Therefore, the impacts to aesthetic resources and the
proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MNO as provided
pursuant to CEOA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163.
Agriculture/Forestry Resources
Previous Analysis
Analysis of agriculture/forestry resources impacts are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 2,
pages iS-23 through IS-24. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that pipeline expansion and relocation of the
storage tank would not result in impacts to agricultural or forestry resources, as t he expansion and
storage tank would not be located in agricultural or forest land areas and would not convert existing
agricultural or forest land areas to different uses.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not be located
in agricultural or forest land areas and would have no impact to those resources.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
6 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to agriculture or forestry resources. No substantial changes to these resources have occurred
since adoption of the I$/MND, and no substantial new agricultural or forestry resources have been
identified within the vicinity of the proposed modifications.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant agriculture or forestry resources impacts or a substantial
increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
Therefore, the impacts to agriculture and forestry resources from the proposed modifications do not
meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15162 and 15163.
Air Quality
Previous Analysis
Analysis of air quality impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 3,
pages IS-25 through IS-28. These sections outline how the Approved Project may impact existing and
future air quality conditions.
For the criteria pollutant emissions analysis, the Adopted IS/MND relied on the emission calculations
within the Program EIR, which included the Phase Ill components. Modeling for criteria pollutant
emissions within the Program EIR (12-01) included a conservative scenario where 12 sewer pipelines,
13 potable water pipelines, 1 tank, 1 pump station, the CWRF, and 70,850 feet of recycled water
pipelines would be constructed in one year.
The Approved Project would implement the construction features for minimizing criteria pollutant
emissions, as described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND. With implementation of these
construction features, the Adopted IS/MND determined that the Approved Project was consistent with
applicable air quality plans, and the modeled Approved Project emissions would not exceed local
significance thresholds. Therefore, the Adopted IS/MND concluded that impacts to air quality as a result
of construction and operation of the Approved Project were less than significant.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Construction of the storage tank would result in the same emissions, as the tank would be the same size
as proposed in the Adopted IS/MND. In addition, operation of the storage tank would not require
equipment that would generate criteria air pollutants, as with the tank proposed in the Adopted
IS/MND.
Construction of the proposed pipeline improvements would result in temporary increases in criteria
pollutant emissions associated with soil disturbance, dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from
on-site construction equipment, as well as from personal vehicles, vendor/delivery trucks, and off-site
trucks hauling soil and aggregate material. However, the project would implement the construction
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
7 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
features for air quality, as listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, and the maximum daily
construction emissions resulting from the proposed modifications would not exceed the adopted San
Diego Air Pollution Control District significance thresholds and would not increase the construction
related criteria pollutant emissions from what was previously evaluated In the Adopted IS/MND. In
addition, the underground pipelines would not require regular maintenance and operation would not
generate criteria air pollutants. Therefore, similar to the findings of the Adopted IS/MND, the
construction-related criteria air pollution emissions from the proposed modifications would be
temporary and would not be expected to have a significant impact on ambient air quality.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to air quality. No substantial changes to air quality circumstances have occurred since adoption
of the IS/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant air quality impacts or a substantial increase in previously
identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to air
quality from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental
MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163.
Biological Resources
Previous Analysis
Analysis of biological resources impacts and identified mitigation measures of the Approved Project are
contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 4, pages IS-28 through IS-35. A focused biological resources
study was also prepared in 2013 by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX}, after adoption of the
IS/MND, to provide specific biological resources infonmation pertaining to federal requirements in
fulfilling SWRCB CEQA-Plus requirements for the CMWD's SRF Program application.
As discussed in the Adopted IS/MND, the Approved Project components have been designed to be
restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility right-of-way (ROW) areas,
access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential,
and other mixed-use developments. The Adopted IS/MND detenmined that the areas being considered
for construction of Approved Project components do not support high quality biological resources, and
the Approved Project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive biological resources, including
those resources protected under federal policy. However, several of the Approved Project components
were determined to occur immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat
that could support special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, and
potential indirect impacts to these resources (e.g., construction noise and vibration, run off, and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel} were determined to occur during
construction. These would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures Bio•lA
t hrough Bio-lf for special-status wildlife species impacts and Bio-1B through Bio-lf for sensitive natural
communities and wetlands impacts.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
8 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
As di.scussed in the focused biological resources study, and similar to the Adopted IS/MND findings, for
federal conformance the Approved Project components were determined to result in indirect impacts to
federally-listed species. These impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through Adopted
IS/MND mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF. Construction of the Approved Project components
was determined to potentially result in impacts to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
from removal of trimming of trees and shrubs during the breeding season; this impact would be
mitigated through mitigation measure Bio-lA. In addition, with conformance with the BMPs described in
the focused biological resources study for runoff and water quality, the Approved Project was
determined to be consistent with the Clean Water Act. The study also concluded that the Approved
Project components would be in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Act, Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
An Addendum Report to the focused biological resources study and Adopted IS/MND biological analysis
was prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (Biological Resources Addendum Report; HELIX,
dated February 21, 2018; Attachment 8) to analyze the biological resource impacts of the proposed
modifications. The analysis from the Biological Resources Addendum Report is incorporated below.
Pipeline Improvements
Similar to the Phase Ill sites analyzed in the Approved Project's IS/MND, the proposed modifications
occur entirely within existing development or in developed roads surrounded by existing transportation,
residential, and other mixed-use developments. No direct impacts would occur to state-and federally-
listed species. However, undeveloped land occurs to the north of the new section of Segment 5 on
Monroe Street, west of Segment 5 on Tamarack Avenue (coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland), and
west of Segment 7, northeast of Segment 5, on Tamarack Avenue. The potable water pipelines occur
adjacent to ornamental landscaped vegetation. Similar to the Approved Project components, in these
areas the pipeline improvements may result in potentially significant indirect impacts to native habitat
that could support special-status wildlife species t hrough construction noise and vibration and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel. With implementation of mitigation
measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF, impacts to special-status wildlife species from the pipeline
improvements would be less than significant.
Wetland habitats associated with Buena Vista Creek are present to the north of the new section of
Segment 5 on Monroe Street. Coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland is present west of the new
section of Segment 5 on Tamarack Avenue. Construction activities associated with project modifications
in Segment 5 could result in potential runoff and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and
personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect
impacts could result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would be considered significant.
Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities
adjacent to undeveloped areas for Segment 5 would be controlled and reduced to less than significant
levels through compliance with the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the Adopted IS/MND
and compliance with applicable regulations, including through implementation of a project-specific
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio•
18, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and
personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and wetlands and mitigate this impact to a less than significant
level.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
9 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
The Segment 7 extension and the potable water pipelines would not be located near sensitive natural
communities or wetlands.
Storage Tank Site Relocation
The storage tank would be constructed on a graded development pad. The site is characterized by
sparse, primarily non-native (weedy) and ornamental vegetation. Some large trees, including eucalyptus,
are present within t he facility. Construction noise and vibration may occur at the storage tank site that
may indirect ly impact nesting birds and raptors. Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-1A through
Bio-1F would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant.
As t he project is located adjacent to landscaped and/or developed areas, it would not significantly
impact sensitive natural communities. Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development
pad for the storage tank. Cracked soils and three plant species that typically occupy ponded areas were
observed, none of which is considered an indicator species for vernal pools. The bodies of seed shrimp
also were noted in this area. Compaction of the pad and a small earthen berm around the edge of this
pad are likely responsible for the observed ponding. Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this
area would not be considered federally jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development
pad, the absence of vernal pool ind icators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential
for any listed species, this feature is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter-
Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the city.
The storage tank would have security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill
over into sensitive biological areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be
less than significant.
The graded pad has a small berm at the downslope edge to restrict water runoff. Potential indirect
effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may occur if runoff from construction work
areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that discharge into
downstream wetland areas. Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated
from construction activities for the storage tank would be controlled and reduced to less than significant
levels through compliance w ith the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the Adopted IS/MND
and compliance with applicable regulations, Including through implementation of a project-specific
SWPPP. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-lB, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF would
prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats
and wetlands and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
Conclusion
The Biological Resources Addendum Report Identified t he pipeline improvements and storage tank as
having potentially significant biological resource impacts, w hereas the Adopted IS/MND did not find
potentially significant impacts for the storage tank site or Segment 7. However, these impacts would be
mitigated to less than significant with mitigation measures previously identified in the Adopted IS/MND.
Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed
modifications would be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding
biological resources which was not known and could not have been known w hen the IS/MND was
adopted and the focused biological resources study was prepared. Therefore, the biological resource
impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental
MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
10 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
Previous Analysis
Analysis of cultural resources impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MNO,
Section 5, pages IS-36 through IS-37. The Adopted IS/MNO concluded that due to the high cultural
resource sensitivity in the Approved Project area, unknown cultural resources may be uncovered during
ground disturbing construction activities. The Adopted IS/MNO determined that with implementation of
the cultural resources procedures, including the regulatory compliance and project construction
features listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MNO, cultural resource impacts would be less than
significant.
A Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared in 2014 by ASM Affiliates Inc. (ASM), after adoption of
the IS/MNO, in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the
CEQA Plus analysis. The inventory determined that although four previously recorded cultural sites were
found within a 0.25-mlle radius of ES 7, only one archaeological site is within the pipeline alignment.
Additionally, although there were four recorded locations near the proposed location of the storage
tank, the site had previously been graded and no additional ground disturbance was anticipated. No
monitoring was recommended provided that the ground was not disturbed. However, the cultural
resource inventory determined that there was a possibility of encountering cultural materials during the
trenching for portions of Segment 5, as 18 prerecorded sites were found within 0.25-mile of the pipeline
alignment, and two archaeological sites are within t he pipeline alignment. Therefore, an archaeological
monitoring program was recommended during the trenching for portions of Segment 5 and 7, along
with a treatment plan in the event of any unanticipated archaeological discoveries. The overall findings
of the report concluded that there would be no adverse effects to historic properties.
According to the Adopted IS/MNO, Approved Project components, such as Segment 5 and 7, would be in
areas of high paleontologlcal sensitivity (Santiago formation). However, since Approved Project
components would occur within existing roadway ROW t hat has already been disturbed, additional
impacts from the Approved Project would not occur. Impacts to paleontological resources would be less
than significant.
The Adopted IS/MNO concluded that impacts from disturbance of human remains during construction
would be less than significant with conformance of the required protocols under Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 5097.97 and California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
An Addendum Report to the Class I cultural resource inventory, dated March 26, 2018, was prepared by
ASM (Attachment C) to analyze the cultural resource sensitivity of the proposed modifications. The
records search for the inventory found four previously recorded sites in the project area for the
proposed modifications (one site intersecting the Segment 5 extension (SOl-10025); one site intersecting
both the Segment 5 extension and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines (SOl-6139); one site
intersecting the storage tank [501-6819); and one site intersecting t he Segment 7 extension [SOl-56011).
The Addendum Report determined that cultural resources within S01-6139 (Segment 5 and Flower Fields
potable water pipelines) were no longer identified as significant in recent surveys due to absence of site
integrity and limited artifact density and d iversity. In a recent survey, SOl-10025 (Segment 5) was
determined to be severely impacted and would not have significant cultural resources. SOl-5601
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
11 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
(Segment 7) has previously undergone a testing and data recovery program due to residential
development in the area, and a recent survey determined the rest of the site to not have significant
cultural resources. SDl-6819, located near the storage tank site, had undergone artifact recovery prior to
construction of the existing tanks and pads on site. This site was recently tested and determined to not
contain significant cultural resources. In addit ion, the proposed modifications would implement the
cultural resource procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, which includes retaining a qualified
archaeologist and Native American monitor if subsurface cultural resources are encountered or if
evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered. Further, the
proposed modifications would provide archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas that
intersect with known archaeological sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them. Therefore, there
would be less than significant impacts to cultural resources from the proposed modifications.
Parts of Segment 5 and Segment 7 were identified as being within a high paleontological sensitivity area;
therefore, the Segment Sand Segment 7 extensions may be in these areas. However, as with the
Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would occur w ithin existing roadway ROW
that has already been disturbed, and significant impacts from the proposed modifications would not
occur.
Similar to t he Approved Project, the proposed modifications would implement the required protocols
under Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.97 and California State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 If human remains are encountered; therefore, impacts to human remains would be less
than significant.
The IS/MND was adopted prior to passage of Assem bly Bill (AB) S2, which requires analysis and outreach
for tribal cultural resources as part of environmental review in compliance with CEQA. The 2014 cultural
resource inventory conducted t ribal outreach to determine if cultural resources of cult ural concern were
located in the area; no responses were received. In addition, through the implementation of the cultural
resource procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND described above, monitoring would be
required in areas that intersect with known archaeological sites that may contain tribal cultura l
resources.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project is Undertaken/New
Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in cultural or paleontological resource conditions within the
area of the proposed modifications since the time of adoption of the IS/MND and the Class I cultural
resource inventory was prepared. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding
cultural or paleontological resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and
no new infonnation of substantial importance relative to cultural or paleontological resources have
been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to cultural resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes
to the circumstances under w hich the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new
information of substantial importance regarding cultural resources which was not known and could not
have been known when the IS/MND was adopted and the Class I cultural resource inventory was
prepared. Therefore, impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources as a result of the proposed
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
12 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Geology/Soils
Previous Analysis
Analysis of geology/soils impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section
6, pages IS-38 through IS-40.
The Adopted IS/MND found that although the Approved Project components would be located in a
seismically active area, that through implementing the relevant requirements of the californla Building
Code and the California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, im pacts related to
ground shaking would be less than significant.
The Adopted IS/MND determined that Segment 5 and 7 were located in areas of high landslide risk, or
areas that may have unstable soil. With implementation of a site•specific geotechnical investigation, as
described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, landslide and unstable soil impacts were concluded to
be less than significant.
Earth disturbing activities from the storage tank construction would not result in the exposure of soils.
Through compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND,
including the General Linear Utility Permit and/or local development standards and preparation of a
SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, erosion impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would be located in a
seismically active area. As with the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would also implement
the relevant requirements of the California Building Code and the California Department of Mines and
Geology's Special Publications 117. Therefore, ground shaking impacts would be less than significa nt.
The Segment 5 extension, on Monroe Street, would be located in an area of unstable soil (potential for
liquefaction), according to Figure 3.5-3 of the City General Plan EIR, dated June 2015 (SCH
#2011011004). The remaining Segment 5 extensions, the Segment 7 extension, the potable water
pipelines, and the storage tank would not be located in these areas. Each proposed modification would
perform a site-specific geotechnical investigation, as described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND,
that would identify geologic and soil hazards and provide typical measures to accommodate the
hazards. With implementation of the geotechnical investigations, impacts from geologic and soil hazards
would be less than significant .
As the storage tank would be constructed in a previously graded pad, earth-disturbing activities may
result in exposure of soils to erosion. In addition, the pipeline improvements may result in exposure of
soils to erosion. Similar to the Approved Project components, compliance with the applicable
regulations listed in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, including the General Linear Utility Permit
and/or local development standards and preparation of a SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable
BMPs, erosion impacts from the proposed modifications would be less t han significant.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
13 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Substantial Changes w ith Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in geology and soil conditions within the area of the proposed
modifications since the time of adoption of the IS/MNO. Additionally, no new information of substantial
importance regarding known geological and soil haiards, conditions, or resources has become available.
Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to
geology and soil resources have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified Impacts related to geology and soils within the Adopted IS/MNO. Additionally,
there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would
be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding geological resources w hich
was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the geology
and soils impacts from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental MNO as provided pursuant to CEOA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Previous Analysis
Analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the
Adopted IS/MND, Section 7, pages IS-40 through IS-41.
For the GHG emissions analysis, the Adopted IS/MNO relied on the GHG emission calculations w ithin the
Master Plans Program EIR (CMWO, EIR 12-01, 2012b), which included the Phase Ill components.
Modeling for GHG emissions within the Program EIR included a conservative scenario w here 12 sewer
pipelines, 13 potable water pipelines, 1 tank, 1 pump station, the CWRF, and 70,850 feet of recycled
water pipelines would be constructed in one year. Construction emissions totaled 959 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO,e) per year. This value did not exceed the 2,500 MT CO,e t hreshold.
Since the Approved Project would construct fewer components than were analyzed in the Program EIR,
it was assumed that GHG emissions associated w ith construction would be less, and would not exceed
the GHG threshold. Pipelines and storage tanks would not require fuel or energy once constructed and
therefore would not emit GHGs. Operational emissions were primarily associated with the CWRF facility
and were less than significant. In addition, as the Approved Project would not exceed the GHG
threshold, the Approved Project was determined to be consistent with applicable GHG plans, policies,
and regulations.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Construction of the storage tank was accounted for in the GHG emissions modeling scenario reported in
the Adopted IS/MND and would not change due to the relocation of the tank.
The new pipeline extensions would add additional pipelines to be constructed that would increase the
overall GHG emissions of the Approved Project. However, the additional length associated w ith the
extensions, which is approximately 7,800 feet, would be well below the total amount of construction for
recycled water pipelines that was assumed in the modeled scenario in the Program EIR. The estimated
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
14 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
GHG emissions under the conservative scenario were well below the 2,500 MT C01e threshold.
Therefore, the proposed modifications' GHG emissions would be expected to have a minor effect on the
Approved Project's GHG emissions and would not cause the emissions to exceed the threshold analyzed
in the Adopted IS/MNO. Therefore, GHG emissions from the proposed modifications would be less than
significant. As the proposed modifications' GHG emissions would not exceed the GHG threshold, the
modifications would also be consistent with applicable GHG plans, policies, and regulations.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in GHG emissions conditions for the proposed modifications
since the time of adoption of the IS/MNO. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance
regarding GHG emissions has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new
information of substantial importance relative to GHG emissions have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to GHG emissions. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to
the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no new
information of substantial importance regarding GHG emissions that was not known and could not have
been known w hen the IS/MNO was adopted. Therefore, the GHG emissions impacts and the proposed
modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MNO as provided pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Previous Analysis
Analysis of hazards and hazardous materials impacts and Adopted IS/MND-identified mitigation
measures of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MNO, Section 8, pages IS-42 through
15-46.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that Approved Project component impacts from the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from the release of hazardous materials into the environment
through accident conditions, would be less than significant.
The Adopted IS/MND (Section 8.d) identified approximately 50 recorded hazardous waste sites along all
Phase Ill pipeline alignments, except for Segment 7. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that Segment 7 and
the storage tank would not result in a significant impact related to listed hazardous material sites.
However, Segment 5 was determined to have the potential to encounter contaminated soil, and impacts
were potentially significant. This potentially significant impact would be mitigated through Adopted
IS/MNO mitigation measures Haz•l (excavation monitoring) and Haz•2 (construction worker health and
safety work plan).
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that temporary roadway closures from development of the Approved
Project components in the roadway ROW could potentially interfere with emergency plans and
procedures. With implementation of the construction measures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MNO,
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
15 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
including a traffic control plan, impacts from temporary roadway closures to emergency replace or
evacuation plans would be less t han significant.
\
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
The proposed modifications would comply with applicable hazardous materials regulations, as described
in Section Sa of the Adopted IS/MND. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in a
potentially significant hazard from routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from a
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment.
As described in the Adopted IS/MND, Segment 7 and the storage tank are not located on a site listed in a
hazardous materials site database, and no significant impacts would occur from disturbing such a site for
these modifications. However, as Segment 5 was identified as having the potential to encounter
contaminated soil during construct ion activities, the Segment S extensions and the potable water
pipelines (which are adjacent to Segment 5) are determined to have potentially significant impacts.
These potentially significant impacts would be mitigated through Adopted IS/MND mitigation measures
Haz-1 (excavation monitoring) and Haz-2 {construction worker health and safety work plan).
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications, if constructed within the
roadway ROW, could potentially interfere with emergency plans and procedures. With implementation
of the construction measures in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, including implementation of a
traffic control plan, impacts from temporary roadway closures from the proposed modifications to
emergency replace or evacuation plans would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in hazards or hazardous materials conditions within the area of
the proposed modifications since the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance regarding hazards or hazardous materials has become available. Therefore, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to hazards or
hazardous materials have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Additionally, there are no
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding hazards and hazardous
materials t hat was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted.
Therefore, the hazards and hazardous materials impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet
the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEOA Guidelines,
Sections 15162 and 15163.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
16 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Hydrology/Water Quality
Previous Analysis
Analysis of hydrology/water quality impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted
IS/MND, Section 9, pages IS-47 through IS-51.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the storage tank would be a passive facility on an existing storage
tank site and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters, nor result in significant water quality
impacts during and after construction, as no ground-disturbing activities would be required and
potential pollutants would be contained within the existing drainage system of the site.
The Adopted IS/MND determined that construction of Segments Sand 7 would have the potential to
contribute to a violation of water quality standards, the degradation of water quality, or increased
erosion or flooding. However, through conformance with the Storm Water General Permit/General
Linear Utility Permit, in addition to requirements established by the Cities of carlsbad (Carlsbad Storm
Water Standards Manual) and Oceanside (Oceanside Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance), w here
applicable, these impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with these measures includes
implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs. These measures are further described in Appendix A
of the Adopted IS/MND.
If dewatering is required for an Approved Project component, dewatering and discharge activities would
be subject to water quality guidelines outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) administered by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the
measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential water quality impacts include a spill contingency
plan and requirements for groundwater disposal if encountered.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications could result in short-term
construction-related water quality, erosion, and flooding impacts that would be minimized through
implementation of the features described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND. In addition, if
dewatering is required for the proposed modifications, the modifications would comply with the NPDES
guidelines. With implementation of these features, impacts from hydrology and water quality from the
proposed modifications would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in hydrology or water quality conditions within the area of the
proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new information
of substantial importance regarding hydrology or water quality has become available. Therefore, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to hydrology or
water quality have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, there are no
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
17 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
substantial changes to the circumstances under w hich the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding hydrology and water quality
which was not known and could not have been known when the IS/MND was certified. Therefore, the
hydrology and water quality impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental M ND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Land Use/Planning
Previous Analysis
Analysis of land use and planning impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted
IS/MND, Section 10, pages IS-51 through IS-52.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that t he Approved Project, whose components are located as
underground facilities or improvements on CMWD property containing existing facilities, would not
physically divide an established community.
The Approved Project determined that construction would result in potential incompatibilities with
surrounding land uses only if it would require roadway closures; however, the proposed modifications
will not result in any roadway closures. With the implementation of a traffic control plan (as described in
construction measures Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MNO) this conflict would be less than significant.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded t hat the Approved Project would result in temporary increases in noise
levels from the operation of construction equipment; however, noise levels would comply with
applicable noise ordinances and the CMWD would implement BMPs to minimize noise.
The Adopted IS/MNO concluded that the Approved Project was consistent wit h the city's General Plan,
as the Approved Project would implement the recycled water infrastructure necessary to meet the land
use goals established in the city's General Plan.
The Adopted IS/MND stated t hat all projects located within the Coastal Zone will require review for
consistency with the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and California Coastal Act prior to issuance
of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The storage tank would be located within the Coastal Zone;
however, the Adopted IS/MND did not state this. As concluded by the Adopted IS/MND, the required
review and issuance of CDPs would ensure that infrastructure projects would be consi,stent with t he
Local Coastal Program; individual components would require this review on a project-by-project basis.
With t his review, impacts to the Coastal Zone were concluded to be less than significant.
Several components of the Approved Project were determined to result in potential impacts to sensitive
species and habitat that are addressed within the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the City of Carlsbad Planning Division
were required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimizat ion measures into t he project
description to be consistent with t he conditions of the City of Carlsbad HM P. In addition, the projects
were required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described
in the City of carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely affected by the project.
Therefore, implementation of the Approved Project components was determined to not conflict w ith
the adopted City of carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant.
CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
18 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
The proposed modifications would result in similar land use conflicts from roadway closures and
construction noise as the Approved Project. With implementation of a traffic control plan, where
applicable, and the construction BMPs described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND, impacts from
these conflicts would be less than significant.
The proposed modifications would further implement the recycled water infrastructure necessary to
meet the land use goals established in the city's General Plan, and therefore the modifications would be
consistent with the city's General Plan.
The Segment 5 and 7 extensions and the Flower Fields pipelines would not be located in the Coastal
Zone. The storage tank and the Palisades potable water pipelines would be located within the Coastal
Zone. As with other Approved Project components, the proposed modifications in the Coastal Zone
would require review for consistency with the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and California
Coastal Act prior to issuance of a CDP. With t his review, impacts to the Coastal Zone would be less t han
significant.
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications were determined to result in
potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed w ithin the City of Carlsbad HMP.
Proposed modifications requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the Carlsbad Planning
Division would be required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization measures into the
project description to be consl,stent with the conditions of the City of Carlsbad HMP. In addit ion, the
proposed modifications would be required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and
mitigation measures described in the Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely
affected by the project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed modifications would not conflict
with the adopted City of Carlsbad HMP and impacts would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under w hich the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in land use and planning policies or requirements within the
area of the proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new
information of substantial importance regarding land use has become available. Therefore, no changes
in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to land use have been
identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to land use and planning. Additionally, there are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance regarding land use and planning which was not known and
could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the land use and planning
Impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental
MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
19 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Mineral Resources
Previous Analysis
Analysis of mineral resources impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND,
Section 11, pages IS-52 through IS-53.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the components would not result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource or locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on an applicable
plan.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not be located
in areas known to have mineral resources or areas delineated as a mineral resource site, and no impacts
to mineral resources would occur.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to mineral resources. No substantial changes to these resources have occurred since adoption of
the IS/MND, and no substantial new mineral resources have been identified within the vicinity of the
proposed modifications.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant mineral resources impacts or a substantial increase in previously
identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to
mineral resources from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEOA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163.
Noise
Previous Analysis
An analysis of noise impacts for the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 12,
pages IS-53 through IS-56.
As described in the Adopted IS/MND, the CMWD committed to the measures list in Appendix A during
construction of the Approved Project to minimize noise effects to surrounding neighborhoods, including
distancing noise sources from residences, compliance with applicable noise ordinances, and providing
notice of construction to residents and property owners.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that operation of the pipeline projects and storage tank would be
passive and would not result in permanent increases in the ambient noise environment.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
20 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
No pile driving or blasting would occur w ith t he Approved Project. Vibration impacts from project
construction on Segment 5 were identified by the Adopted IS/MND as having the potential to impact
nearby structures and vibration-sensitive equipment and operations at commercial and industrial land
uses. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that residential development would not include vibration
sensitive equipment that would be impacted by construction vibration. As listed in Appendix A of the
Adopted IS/MND, project construction would provide advanced notice of construction, between two
and four weeks prior to construction, to residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignments.
The announcement will state specifically where and w hen construction will occur in the area. With t his
adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration, impacts from construction vibration were
concluded to be less than significant.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would implement the
construction features described in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MND. With implementation of these
features, impacts from construction noise would be less than significant.
Once operational, the proposed modifications would be passive and would not result in permanent
increases in the ambient noise environment.
The Segment 5 extension, on Monroe Street, would be constructed near commercial land uses.
Therefore, there would be a potential for construction vibration to affect t he commercial development.
As with the Approved Project, construction of the proposed modifications would provide advanced
notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to residents or property
owners within 300 feet of the alignments. The announcement will state specifically where and when
construction will occur in the area. With this adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration,
impacts from construction vibration were concluded to be less than significant.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in noise or vibration policies or requirements within the area of
the proposed modifications since the time of the adoption of the IS/MND. Additionally, no new
information of substantial import.ance regarding noise or vibration has become available. Therefore, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to noise or
vibration have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modificat ions involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to noise and vibration. Additionally, t here are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which t he proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance regarding noise and vibration which was not known and
could not have been known when the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the noise and vibration impacts
and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as
provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
21 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Population and Housing
Previous Analysis
Analysis of population and housing impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted
IS/MND, Section 13, page IS-56. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the components would have no
impact on population growth or on displacing housing or people.
Analysis of t he Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not directly or
indirectly induce population growth because the projects have been developed to accommodate
projected population growth and associated demand. Furthermore, the Approved Project would not
displace housing or people, and t herefore, no impacts would occur.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to population and housing. No substantial changes to population and housing have occurred
since adoption of the IS/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant population and housing impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the
impacts to population and housing from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163
Public Services
Previous Analysis
Analysis of public services impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND,
Section 14, page IS-57. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the components would have no impacts
public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not result in
impacts to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
22 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
relative to public services. No substantial changes to public services have occurred since adoption of the
IS/MND.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant public services impacts or a substantial increase in previously
identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to
public services from the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 1S163.
Recreation
Previous Analysis
Analysis of recreation impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section
15, page IS-58. The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the components would not result in increased use
of recreational facilities or require t he construction of new facilities, and no impacts would occur.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the pipeline improvements and the storage tank would not increase use
of recreational facilities require the construction of new facilities, and no Impacts would occur.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to recreation impacts. No substantial changes to recreation impacts have occurred since
adoption of the IS/M ND.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new recreation impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts
would occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the impacts to recreation from the
proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental M ND as provided
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 and 15163.
Transportation/Traffic
Previous Analysis
Analysis of traffic impacts are contained in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 16, pages IS-58 through IS-60.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded that the Approved Project would result in temporary impacts to t raffic
circulation, emergency access, and pedestrian and bicycles facilities from construction-related traffic,
due to potential disruption of traffic from lane closu res, detours, and increased traffic. Through
preparation of a traffic control plan, as described under Transportation/Traffic in Appendix A of the
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
23 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Adopted IS/MND, these disruptions would be minimized or avoided and impacts would be less than
significant.
The Adopted IS/MND also concluded that long-term traffic impacts from maintenance and repair
activities would be less than significant, due to the small nu mber of t rips that these activities would add
to total daily traffic on the roadways.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications could result in short-term
construction traffic impacts during construction, due to temporary impacts to traffic circulation,
emergency access, and pedestrian and bicycles facilities. As w ith the Approved Project, t he proposed
modifications would implement preparation of a traffic control plan, as described under
Transportation/Traffic in Appendix A of the Adopted IS/MNO. With implementation of the plan, these
disruptions would be minimized or avoided and impacts would be less than significant.
After construction, vehicle trips associated with maintenance and repair of the facilities are considered
similar to those previously analyzed under the Adopted IS/MND and would not be considered new
traffic trips. Impacts from operational traffic would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes w ith Respect to the Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in transportation and t raffic conditions within the area of the
proposed modifications since the time of adoption of the IS/MNO. Additionally, no new information of
substantial importance regarding transportation and traffic has become available. Therefore, no
changes in circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to transportation
and traffic have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to transportation and traffic. Additionally, there are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance regarding transportation and traffic which was not known
and could not have been known w hen the IS/MNO was adopted. Therefore, the transportation and
traffic impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Utilities and Service Systems
Previous Analysis
Analysis of utilities and service systems impacts of the Approved Project are contained in the Adopted
IS/MND, Section 17, pages IS-61 through IS-62.
The analysis of utilities and service systems in the Adopted IS/MND determined that Approved Project
components would use water for fugitive dust control and trench compaction during construction.
However, this use would be temporary and limited to relatively small amounts, and sufficient water
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
24 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
supplies would be available. Impacts from solid waste generation were concluded to be less than
significant, as construction waste would be temporary and limited to small amounts and operation
would not generate solid waste that would impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. The
Approved Project was concluded to not result in impacts to wastewater treatment requirements or
environmental effects from construction of new water or wastewater facilities.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
The proposed modifications would result in similar impacts to the Approved Project. Water for fugitive
dust control and trench compaction during construction would occur; however, the work would be
temporary and limited to relatively small amounts. Solid waste would be disposed of similar to the
Approved Project. The proposed modifications would not require construction of previously unidentified
water or wastewater facilities. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not result in any new
significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the Adopted IS/MND, and would not
change the conclusion t hat less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems would occur.
Substantial Changes with Respect to the Circumstances under which the Project is Undertaken/New
Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no substantial changes in utilities and service services, or to the requirements of
agencies that provide such services within the area of the proposed modifications since the adoption of
the IS/MND. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance regarding utilities and service
systems has become available. Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no new information of
substantial importance relative to utilities and service systems have been identified.
Conclusion
None of the proposed modifications involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in
previously identified impacts related to utilities and service services. Additionally, there are no
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding utilities and service systems
which was not known and could not have been known when the I5/MND was adopted. Therefore, the
utilities and service systems impacts and the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEOA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163.
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Previous Analysi.s
The mandatory findings of significance analysis are included in the Adopted IS/MND, Section 18,
pages IS-63 through IS-67.
The Adopted IS/MND concluded the Approved Project would have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment through indirect runoff impacts to wetlands and sensitive natural communities, and
inadvertent int rusions of construction equipment and personnel into the sensitive natural communities.
With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lf, the biological resource impacts
would be mitigated to less than significant.
CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
25 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
The Adopted IS/MND also concluded that the Approved Project would result in a substantial adverse
effect on humans related to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. These
potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through implementation of mitigation
measures Bio-lA through Bio-lf, Haz-1, and Haz-2.
Analysis of the Proposed Modifications
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment through indirect runoff impacts to wetlands and sensitive natural
communities, and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into the sensitive
natural communities. With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lf, the biological
resource impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.
In addition, the proposed modifications would result in a substantial adverse effect on humans related
to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. These potential impacts would be
mitigated to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bio-lF,
Haz-1, and Haz-2.
Substantial Changes with Respect to t he Circumstances under which the Proposed Modifications are
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available
relative to the mandatory findings of significance analysis.
Conclusion
Based on the above, no new significant mandatory findings of significance impacts or a substantial
increase in previously identified impacts would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
Therefore, the impacts to mandatory findings of significance from the proposed modifications do not
meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
Sections 15162 and 15163.
5. Conclusion
Impacts associated with the proposed modifications would not result in a new significant impact or
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts per the Adopted IS/MND, the
focused biological resources study or Class I cultural resource inventory. There are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the proposed modifications would be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when
the IS/MND was adopted. Therefore, the proposed modifications do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental IS/MND as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and
15163. As such, this Addendum to the Adopted IS/MND satisfies CEQA requirements for the proposed
modifications described herein.
CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
26 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
6. References
ASM Affiliates Inc. (ASM). Addendum Report: Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for Amendments to
Segments 5 and 7, Potable Water Pipelines, and the D Tank Site for the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
(ASM Project No. 20460). March 26, 2018.
Class I Cultural Resource Inventory forthe CMWD Phase Il l Recycled Water Project. May 2014.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District {CMWD). Evaluation Form for Environmental Review and Federal
Coordination for the State Water Resources Control Board SRF Program Application Carlsbad
Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 2013.
2012a. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (EIA
12-02). SCH No. 2012091049. Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. November 2012.
2012b. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and
Recycled Water Master Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 12-01).
Available on-file at the City of Carlsbad. SCH No. 2012021006. October 2012.
City of Carlsbad. Final General Plan & Climate Action Plan, September 2015, Final Environmental Impact
Report (SCH#2011011004, dated June 2015.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). Update to the Biological Resources Study and IS/MND
findings for Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. March 30, 2018.
Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase
Ill .Recycled Water Project. May 2013.
CMW0 Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Addendum
27 March 2018
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Attachment A
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled
Water Project Fina l IS/MND
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Final Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
EIA 12-02
September 19, 2012
November 14, 2012
Prepared for:
Carlsbad Municipal Waler District
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. California 92008
Prepared by:
ATKINS
3570 Carmel Moun loin Rood. Suite 300
Son Diego. California 92130
Alkins Project No.: 100024978
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 ..................... '. ................................................................................. 15-3
Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... IS-3
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................. 1$•17
Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................................................................. IS-17
Project Design and Construction Measures •.......................•.................................................................•... lS-17
Environmental Initial Study ............................................................................................................................. IS-20
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................................. IS-20
Determination •...•..•.•..•...•...•..•..••....•..•.•.•.•....••....•..•.•.•......•.....•.................•.•........•............•....•.•....•....•...•..• IS-20
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... IS-21
Earlier Analyses ......................................................................................................................................... 15-67
Supporting Information Sources ............................................................................................................... IS-68
Biological Resource Database and literature Review ..........•.................................................................... IS-70
list of Mitigating Measures ..................................................................•..........................................•........ 15-70
Applicant Concurrence with Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 1s,.73
Figure 1 Regional Location Map ..................................................................................................... IS-4
Figure 2 Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Facility Locations .......................................................... 15-5
Figure 3 Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion ................................................................... IS-7
Figure 4 Expansion Segment lA ..................................................................................................... IS-9
Figure 5 Expansion Segment 2 ....................... . ............................................................. 15-10
Figure 6 Expansion Segment 4A ................................................................................................... 15-ll
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Appendices
Expansion Segment S ..................................................................................................... 15-12
Expansion Segment 7 ..................................................................................................... 15-13
Expansion Segment 8 ..................................................................................................... 15-14
Expansion Segment 9 ..................................................................................................... 15-15
Expansion Segment 18 .........................................................•......................................... IS-16
Proposed Storage Tank Location ..............•..............•...................................................... 15-18
Phase Ill Indirect Biology Map ....................................•...........................................•....... IS-31
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................... lS-19
Worst-case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction ............................................ lS-26
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result
in Significant indirect Impacts (Only) to Special Status Species ..................................... IS-30
City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards .................................................................. .IS·54
A Regulatory Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features
B Biological Resourc~s Letter Report
I ATKINS CMWD Phase ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
POQ8 i
ie13teA=18er 1~ 101~
Novomb<te 1.c 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
I ATKINS
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phose Ill Reeyclo<I Water Ptoje<:ts lS/MND
Pogeii
Soplsmbar 1 $l. 2012
NQv&mb§:r 1-4 2Q12
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Case Number: EIA 12-02
Project Title: Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Project Location
The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in
the County of San Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD)
service area (see Figure 1). A small portion of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) is located in
t he City of Vista and a small component (Expansion Segment 5) is located in the City of
Oceanside. The project components will occur within public right s-of-way (ROW) and
easements, with the exception of a portion of pipeline that would extend across the La Costa
Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2.
The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at the existing
CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, 92011. The new or relocated storage
tank would be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site near the intersection of Poinsettia Lane
and Black Rail Road. Expansion Segment 1A (ES 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 j?aSt of the boundary of Carlsbad
and Vista. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) north and south of State Route 78 (SR-78) along the
Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansion Segment 7
(ES 7) is located south of SR-78, west of College Avenue, and north east of Carlsbad Village
Drive. Expansion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El Camino Real between Aviara and La Costa
Avenue and within the South La Costa Golf Course. Expansion Segment 9 (ES 9) is located north
of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, east of Highway 101, and south of Poinsettia Avenue.
Expansion Segment 18 (ES 18) is located southwest of Maerkle Reservoir along Palmer Way and
Impala Drive.
Description of Project
Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases:
Existing {Phase I and Phase II}, Phase Ill, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase Ill, would
expand CMWD's recycled water system to t he north area of Carlsbad and begin initial
expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project components would be
completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase Ill project would expand the treatment capacity
(from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the GaFlseall \A.<aleF Ree·f eliRg ~aeili1•1CWRF by installing
additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also install
96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing
potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND
PageMND-1
Se,a~eFRBer 19, aon
November u 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
1 BMITIGATED NEGATlVE DECLARATION
use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area (see
Figure 2).
Determination
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of
Carlsbad finds as follows:
[gl 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.
0 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).
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated "Negative Declaration
is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ATTEST:
President, Carlsbad Municipal Water District
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Reci,Cle<I Woter Projects IS/MND
PogeMN0-2
i&fol&M~8r 19, JQI.I
Noverobef 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MNO ANO 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/M ND during the public review period that
began on September 19, 2012 and closed on October 18, 2012. The comment letters on the Draft IS/
MND are listed in Table 1 below. Each of the comment letters were reviewed and divided into individual
comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern. Where a letter comments
on more than one issue, each individual comment issue is numbered (A·l, for example) and a specific
response is Included for each issue.
Table 1. Comment letters Received on Draft IS/MND
Com mentor
A Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
8 Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission
C Jacob Armstrong, Chief, Development Review Branch,
Department of Transportation
0 Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, Brownfields and Environmental Restoration
Program, Department of Toxic Substances Control
E Ahmad Kashkoli, Senior Environmental Scientist,
State Water Resources Control Board
F James W. Royle, Jr., Chairperson, Environmental Review Committee,
San Diego County Archaeological S0<:iety
G Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera
H Paul J. Bushee, General Manager, Leucadia Wastewater District
ATKINS CMWO Phose 111 Recycled Waler Projecls ~/MNO (EIA 12-02)
PogeRTC-i
Date
October 19, 2012
September 24, 2012
September 24, 2012
October 9, 2012
October 17, 2012
September 28, 2012
October 16, 2012
October 19, 2012
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
ST~T& OF CAt,IFOKNJA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PUNNING A.>;O REsEARCH
ST.-\'!'ECUtr\klSOIIOUSEAMD Pl.ANNING UNIT
t:ONVNI) a.11i°'V:-: ,11:., .........
A-1.
Oc&obcr 19, l012
furt>ar:i.~
Cul:;hld M11niQ1)1,ll Waler O~lrici
163S FM4day Avcn·u.e
Clu'lsb&d., CA 92003
S11hjm; CMWO Plwe ll1 Recycled Waicr Project
SCfl#: 2014091049
The S~le Ckllflnjhousc submiltcd the above named MiliplCd Nct,11ivc 04x:.!mtioD 10 sclmed 1.1iue
agm:::ies fot review. 0., lhe Cl'ltloscd Document Octait5 Report plcuc no~ tha1 the Clcarir,aJio11St has
list.eel the st:ai.e ~nck.J rhat reviewed )'OUr dowmmc. 1"hc ~vlc;,w psriod closed 0.1 Oet.obtr I&, 2012, ~nd
tl1t com:incncs (roin tbt lt$Jl(mding •~Dey (ll:$) 4 (~re) cnclo$Cd. lflhii conwcm pacbie ia not in otckr.
please notify 1be Sa.~ Cle.ariogho11$C immedi•lely. Plea$C rt'fcr to the projccl', ten-digit State
Clc:1rin3l10UK numl:icr 1n future co~ndcoce '° 11111 wi: may respoOO promptly.
"A rcspoma1>1\: ot other pvbtk qc:iey shall o!\ly ~substanriY<i comments rcg;ittbng those
activities in~-olvcd in a projc.:L which arc -.-.ith,n an 2.rca o( expatjse of!Jle aamey« ,¥tikh ~
required 10 be camed out« approved by lhc o;eooy. 11,osc cumrn:;t'll$ slWl be w;,portcd by
,;:,ecifio documcN:.tion."
These commc.":r.U 1-l'C forwarded for ou in P,-q,Mica )'011:r flnal ~viNnm1:n111J dbcu."tWnl. Sho-.ild )'(Kl need
more. ln(()c'm:uion or c.t:trification of I.he enclosed cornn:x:ots;, we R:COmmcnd that yoo contact Ille
conwncnting a.gc:ncy directly.
Thit kttet Ol:lwow1cd;cs th1t you have oomplic<I W11h 1hc Stuic C~o!lk l"CVlow rcq_\lin:cncma fof
dtifj. ct1Vitont1'ICl'llal doeume.nu. PUffll3flt ,o lbc California. Enviton~n'.t! Qu~i[y AcL Plc~ COQ!Xl :be.
Stzt-o Qn.ri:nsflous,e al (?16) 44S..()613 if you ba,,c any qlK'.ftion, repJ'd:in& d~ c11vitou.ino1'1al l"CVkw
p<O<CS<
s~~~
ScouMorpit
Dircc(or, ~•1~ C.1c3tlnsJ\OWC
8DCkJrm.&
": Rcsoi:rCC$ Ae<:ncy
HOO lltiilS:Crtet P.O.b30# Sami:atnto,C;a!ifomi;a 9SSIM°'4
(916)-«S-0613 FAl (916)32:3-3016 www.op,r.a.gw
A·l.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
lffiER A. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
The two comment letters from the State aearfnghouse state that the Oty of Carlsbad
has complied with the State Clearinghouse requirements for the review of draft
environmental documents under the californica Environmental Quality Ac.t (CEQA}. The
public review period for the IS/MND extended from September 19, 2012 until October
18, 2012. Three comment lettel's were re«ived 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). Addrtionally, one letter from a state agency wa.s received following the close of the
public review period: the State Water Resources Conttol Board (letter £).
A 'J KI N S CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) I ' Page RTC-I
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
SCHt 201209100
COMMENTS
Document Details Report
State Cleartnghouso o:ita B3S~
Pto/Oet nu. CH/ND Pt.a!;• II Rocycltd w,w ~I
t.Hd A$'MC')' Car'isoad, City of
l)'Pf MND Mif,g~ Noc.ati"• Oodtnliotl
D~Qn n. ~·· CWO}td: WOUid ~,. lfo,1n1tnc Ctod)t t~ ◄,O ~IO a.O.)'Mlhin Illa
Celt:Soao WIit• R1cydlng Focility by Ins~ ;tddi~ t.llral,onl,ll'lb Wld c!\%1flrit OOMktNt119.
'ihe ~• ■ o,ojk(wou!d-.0 r'\$"" 96.600h e• f..c.(I( olpe6nN,. ~-Of cons.wet•,,_
•~~~'(lit el0$tan9potablswa1e, 1-dtlu IOf'eC)'Cted w.ai., us., and rwolil~
~ .. IOtt)'Stl)l"N IOUM~ ~--inolglt! O:,C~~nttoc:r.iord IYOUQhOlttlha
p-ajcK:llfOII
Load Agoncy Cont:J1ct
N»mo ~ 1<4oMt<t,
AJ,ClflC)" C.--!lbM~&IWi~~
PltrM• {760) 60:2,462fl -· Addr~n 183SFIQOayAYcnit
Clw CarlabN
Project Location
COWl(Y SanO!ego
Cfly Cllr1st»d ·-Ut/L(NIQI '3"1J"1r'NI 11r 1J'37'"W
Cross SftNt.s lntorslate S a,a: P:ilomar At,port Road
P.irc.lN!J,. NIA
ToWMhfp Rqe
Proximity to:
Highway, H,,,y 78
AIIJ,o,U ,_,,CC:ltli.n-Patomw, OoNnsidt
R.i»w•~ AT,SSiF-,ict~SW
St..,t♦ CA Zip 92008
....
W.at«wlYI 8IAtWi ViUl Creek. AQua, Ht<!~ Ctffi,, $.-Mel'OOS
&M0/6 C.r!stlad Unif,od ~
UMUs-•
Projcd hf'SVH Olo10!jllc8' Rewuf'CN; T~INIOl.tl
R-~ Rt.50U!Ut AofflCY; c:etrom'.a Coas:ial Ccnfflh;lllon; ~ o1 Rlh .-'Id c-. Rogiotl 15:
A~•.r [)opawtmonl o1 PA!b and Rtcl'N1lot'I; De~rtmetil c4 Yh:.01 Rc50\M'.oos; OOlcc of Emetgllll'ley
~AQIK,l::f. Calbr'I; Rosourcos, Rocyding and~ CalltOII$, OMslQn ol
Aetcwwulkl; Cllllotnie. ~ Peln:II:, Cellrwl11, O.s-lrkt t t; CA O~l'lt d ~ He&O; StaM
W.-:or ~, ~QI Sol t'd.. OM$on ol Fin;illdbf AUi~•: Ro,glO!liltWaw~ OonlfOI
Soens. l<l'gD'lt: Oepam,onl olTOJ&:i&Jbst.aneu Conlrol: Na~ A.~ Hcfo. Commiuion;
Pub1c ll'tlliu Co-m(,sskw,
bdo/Rovlow 10i1lf2012
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON !HE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
ATKINS CMWD Phose III Recycled Wote< Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-021
Poge RTC-2
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
STAT! or CALIPORN!I.
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING A>m R&sEARCH
Sr1i·n: Cl.E..uJ:NCHOUS~AND P.I.IINN:NG UNIT
6l)).fU:,tDC lUt.OWNJR. -
October 19, 2012
B•~ Kcm:dy
Ciry of Carlsbad
Pl-:mning Dtpartme:1~1
l6lS Fanlhy AYCn11c
aubbod, CA 92<l08
Subject; CMWO Phuc IU Rcc)dcd Wal.et Projeel
SCH#: 2012091049
Dear Bar bani Kall'ltdy:
TI,e coclosecl comment(,) On your Mitigated Negative Declaration was (~re) recelvied by the Stale
Cturinahouse aJicr the end oftbc state ~view p.c:riod. which closed on Oceobcr 13, 2012. We aro
forwarding tbc~ conumnta to yo\l bcewsc th~y provide information ot raise issues that shot1Jd be
addrC$$<:d in yollr final environmeotaJ docuim:nt.
'Ille ~litomi3. Euvironmental ~lity Aot does uot require Lead Ag,cneies co teSpond to la.tc eoiruneim.
Ho~ver, we encourage you to iooorporatc (bese additional oommcn11 into yoor final environmental
document and IOCOr1$id1:t lhe.m prior to laking t1nnl :iction 011 the proposed projcd.
Plc:a50 wnt.aot ~ St.ate Clcllringhoosc aa {916) 44S•0613 if yo.i b;ivc aoy q\lCSCions conoccntn: cbc
covironmcutaJ r~iew proceu. If you h.1&~ 11 quest.ion regard.ins the above•l'l&mcd project, please tc:fu to
tlie tmodiQit St11c Clcatinghouse nwnb:r (2012091049) wl1en con12cci0a di.is-office.
SI,~~
Sco~a~ • '
Oi~ctor, State Ocariugho\l.Sc
F..nd0$ures
cc: Rc.so~cs Ap,cy
ATKINS CMWD Pha,e Ill Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND lElA 12-02)
PageRTC-3
COMMENTS RECEIVEO ON THE PHASE 1111S/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
11-1.
8-2.
COMMENTS
NATIVE AMER.CAN HERJTAGE COMMISSION
.. ,CAPnOL .,...U.IIIOOM,._ U.C:"1Ulllilfl0. ~ 116114 tf'!lltiS>fll, tlllil ltt'l U-J,,,_ ---~■":\ ----
Sepbtmber 2◄, 2012
Ms. Barbara Kenne<fy, Planner
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWDI
163$ Fataday Avenue
Cattsbad, CA 92008
Re: SCH#2012091049· CEOA Notice orComottJisltt.R.rPMM M!Ugated Negatille
Oeclaratlon· for the •Phasg Ill Recycted Water Protect (EIA 12:92>" IOcal:Od ~
C.llsba<!;~Q~l~
Deo, Mo. Kennedy:
The Native American 1-teri!age Commission (NAHC) is the $late of Callromla "Trustee Agency' tor tho protedion and pre-servation or Nalivo Arnerlcan cunural resouroa,s
pursu:ant to cerlfomia Publ'ic: RMOutees Codo §21070 and affirmed by lhe Thfrd Appe11ate Court
In the cas6 or EPIC v. Johnson (1985! 170 Cat App, 3• s04).
Thls iottcr Includes sGllo and fader al statutes retat!ng lo Native American
hlstork proportios 0t ,osou,cu of roligfous and cultural slgnificanice to American Indian lribes
and a'ltdl'ffted Na1ivo American ln$viduals as 'consullif"li partles' under both state and federal
taw. State law also addtesses the froodom of NatiYe Amcl'ICan Religious Exprassion in Pubtic
Re-,ees c«!e ~5097.9.
The Calif<k'ria Et'Mronmental Quality Act (CEOA -CA Public Resources Code
21000-21 177, amendment. effective 3118/201 O) requires that eny projed thal causei a
substantfal ad\lel'$Q change in the Signfficance of an historical resource, that incluctos
atehatological resources, tS a •significant effect' requiring the npar.ation of an Er'\'Wonment.al
Impact Report (EtR) por the CEQA GuicJelines defines a &ignifC8J'lt lmpact on the environment
as 'a substantial. or potentially substantial. adverse change fn My of physicat condillons within
an area affected by the proposed pro;ec:t, lndudirlg ... obJeC18 of historic or aGSthotic
significance.-In Ofder to comp1y with this prO\lisJon, the lead agency l.s reqvired to ,ssess
whethe1 the project will have on adVerse lmpe,ct on these 1'9$CUrteS w!thtn the 'atea of potential
effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. The NAHC recommends that the lead a9Cncy
request that the NAHC do a Sacred lands Ale search as pattof lho c:arcfu1 pfannlng for tho
proposed project.
The NAHC -saored Silos,; as defined by the N11We Anlerican Heritage Commission and
the California Legf$1ature 1n Callfomla Public Resourc:ee Code§§5097.94{a) and 5097.96.
Items fn ttiG NAHC Satred Lands Inventory arc confldOnllal ond e)lemp( from the Poblic
Record, Ace puc-$UW1t to c,11rom1a Govemtnent COde §6254 (r ).
Early oonsultatlon with Native American lrtbes In ywr area Is tne best way to avoid
unanlic:fpated discoverin of cultural resources or burial sites cnce a proJ1cI ls ut1derwa-y.
Cuftwaly aff~iated tribes and lndlvictuatt fN.Y havo )r.nowtodgeof the relglous and cultural
8-2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 11 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
lfTIER a. NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
The first comment lnttoduces the letter and states the role of the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) as a protector of Clllfornla's Native American Cultural
Resources. The comment describes the definition of 'slgniflcant effect' related to
archaeological resources per CEQA guidelines; recommends an NAHC Sacred Lands
File Search because the Area of Potential Effect for projects components are known
to be very cultural sensitive; and .nates that Sacred Sites, as defined by the California
PubHc Resources Code, and items In the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential.
Section S of the IS checklist, Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural resources
records search performed by Atkins at the South Coastal Information Center in January
2012 {Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Sewer, Water, and Re-cyded Water Mastet Plans
EIR (Master Plans EIR}, which Included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed
Phase Ill project. A NAHC SLF secirch wa.s conducted for the Master Plans EIR. The
search identified known archaeological re.soutce.s throughout the C.MWD service. are.a;
however, the project components would be constructed in previousJy disturbed areas.
This comment recommends consultation with an attached list of Native American
contacts.. Section S of the IS checklist Cultural Resources, is based upon a cultural
resources reoords search for the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan
and CMWO Water and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH
#2012021006) (2012 Master Plans EIR), which Included the proposed project as part
of the Recycled Water Master Plan. A$ disc.ussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources,
of the 2012 Master Plans EIR on page 4.4-6, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave
Singleton of the NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, lettets 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 PfOposed project that
contained maps of the proposed CIP locations, and requested information about the
Slf•listed resourCle.s, as well as information about any resources not listed in the Slf for
inclusion In this report.
/\TKINS CMWD Phos& Ill Recycled Wole< Pro;&cts tS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC4
Nov&mbef I4.20I2
July 17, 2018 Item #4
8-2.
cont.
8-3.
8-4.
8-5.
8-6.
8-7.
COMMENTS
&ignmeanoe of the historic properties In the project area (e.g. APE), We strongly urgo the,t you
make c:.on1oct with the Hsi of Net111e American Contaccs on Ille attachOd fi&t of Nalivo A,netiean
~. to see if your p,oposed p,ojoc.t might impact Native American cultural rosoucccs al\d to
obtain lheir reeommencla.Oon, ooooeming the proposed PfojOCL Purauant to CA Publie
Resources Code§ 5097.95, tho fllAHC roquect& cooperation from c>ther public agencies in Ofder
tha1 I.he NalfVc American consulting parti,es be provided pertinent project lnformatlon.
Con~ultation with Native American communities. is atiO a metter of ollWonmentat JUS-tioo ~s
defrled by Califomia GQ\'emment Code-§65040.12{e), Pur,u~tnt to CA PubkC Resoutees Codo
§5097 .95, the NAHC fequests lha1 r>ertlnont p,oj8Ct il"lormation be pro\tided cons.ultfng tnbal
parties. inelvclfng a.rc~eologlcal $1udles. The NAHC reoommends avol~ as defined by
CEO.A Guldelnes §1S370(a) to pursurtg a proJttt lhat would damaoe or destroy N-auve
Amertean c.ultu:raJ resourcu and Califomia Public Re&OlXoos Code Sedion 21083.2
(Arehaeolog:ical Rt:SOutCU) that fe(fOireS documentation, da1a reetYWJry of cu!tural resourtes,
coosttuerion to avoid sites and the possible use of covenant easements to pcotact sites.
Fur1hermore, tho NAHC If the proposed p<oject is under the junscfrclion of the statutes
end regul.at.ions of Ille National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. NEPA: 42 U,S.C. ◄32.1-43351).
Cons.ulfatioo with tribes and interested Native American con1u8:ing pat1Ios. on the NAHC list.
should be oonduc.ted In oompllanee wilh the requrrements of tederat NEPA and Secclon 106 and
4(0 of loderol NHPA (16 u.s .c. 470 ., ••q). 36 Cl'R Part 800.3 (0 (2) & .5, the Prcsldcnr.
Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 u.s.c 4371 fJl ssq. and NAGPRA ('25 u.s.c. 3001-
3013) as aPS)(Opriale. The 1992 SectetSIY of th" lnlorior.s Standords fer the Tre,tnwnt of
Historic Proporties were rcvise<i so that lhev oou~ be eppllcd to Qtl hlslo.rk; re:soUtc:.e types
i'ncluded In the Notlon;al Register of Historic: Pix.a and tncf~g cultural la.n<beapos:, Nso.
federal Exeeu!No Orders Nos. 11593 {p(ecervation of cultural environment), 13176
(coordination & conslAt:atlon) and 13007 (Sacrod Sites) ani helpful. suppc,tty& guides for
Sedlon 106 CCl"l$U~Uon. The af:Orcmontionod Soa-ocary of the loloriOf's Ston<httdi include
recommendations Sor all 'lead agencies' to consider lhc historic conttxl ot proP0$6d projects
e.nd to "ritSurd\~ lht cultural 13['Cl~cape that might ineludo tho 'ama of poUtnliat effoet.'
COnf!dGntiality ot ·tmtortc PfOperties of reltglous and euttural significance• should also be
considered as pl'otected by Cal!fomla Govemmenl Code §6254( r) 8nd may atso be pr01ected
under Section 304 ol he NHPA or at the Stcttta,y o4 &he Interior di$ittion if not oligi>I• for
li$ting oo 1he Natfonal Reglater or His-t.oric PlacM. The SIK:reta,y may mo be ad'Asecl b)' the
fedcrel lndlan Religious Froedom Ar.t (cf. 42 u .. s .C, 1998) in issuing a decision on whethe< or
not to dlsCIOM items of retigiou& and/or euttural i'9nifica.noe identified in or near the APE.s and
possibility tl\rcatenod by proposed project aCW1ty.
Fut\he.rmora, Public Resourct'S Code Sedion 5097 .98. Califomla Govemment Code
§27491 and Hec1tlh & Safetv Code Section 7050,5 p,ow.re for ptovlslons l0t ln3dvCHtent
di.scove,y of homan rema-ns mond;0lc: lh• pnx::iou11 lo be tollowed in the oYOM of a diSCO'lef)'
of human remain,: in a PtOjeel 1oca1ion o1h0r than o 'd8d!cated eemetety'.
To be effecli•,e. COO$Ultation on specific projads mutt bo tho resuJt of an ongoing
tolationsh!p between Native American tribe$ and lead agencies, prcject proponents and their
contractOf'S., in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding trib:11 «lf1Sutlatlon, a relelionshlp t>vitl
around regular meeiings and informal invohrement wilh kx:et tribe$ will lead to more Q~lk1five
eonsulta.tfon tilbJI Input on f'Pecifk: proje,els.
Fln•Hy, when N1Utve Amerk:an cultural siles and/or Nolive Ame~M burial siln iN'CI
p,evatent within the project site, the N.AHC ,eeonvnend$ ·avoidance' of the site as refe,enoed by
CEQA Guldelmn Section 16370(a).
8-4.
8-5.
8-6.
8-7.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND ANO RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment "~,commends consultation with tribes and interested Native American
parties, In compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPAJ. The proposed project does not tnvotve a federal action or federal agency
and is therefore not subject to the requirements of NEPA or Section 106 of the NHPA.
Should the CMWO pul'$ue federal funding in the future, such as through the aean
Water State Revotving Fund, the CMWD will undergo consultation with tribes and
Interested Native Americans in compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA. As
discus.sed In response to comment 8--2, letters to each of the tribal contacts identified
by NAHC during the 2012 Master Plans EIR NOP comment period, whlch Included the
Phase Ill P,oject components, were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012.
This comment describes the requirements for confidentiality related to Mstoric
properties. of religious and cultural significance. The IS/MNO recognizes these
,equirements; therefore, no sensitive information related to any cultural resources was
disclosed In the IS/MND.
This comment describes regulations th.at outline procedures to be followed in the
event of an accidental discovery of human remains. As discussed in Section S d} of IS
checklist, the procedures detailed in PRC Section 5097.98 and Cailifornia State Health
and Safety Code Section 70S0.S would be implemented In the event of unintendonal
disturbance of human remains.
This comment is related to consultation with Native American representatives. Tribal
contacts were consulted as part of preparation of the 2012 Master Plans EIR., which
included the Phase Ill Project components. Refer to response to comment 8-2 for
additfonal information.
This comment desc,ibe-s the C£QA recommendatfon to avoid Native American cultural
sites and/or Native American burial sites. Avoidance has already been lncorpotated in
the project by locating the Phase Ill Project components in previously disturbed areas,
such as within existing roadways and the developed South La Costa Golf Course.
ATKINS CMWD PMse Ill Recycled Woler Projecls IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
PogeRTC-S
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
If you haV6 any quei1ions about &his response to your requn-t. plea$$ do not hcda'\G to
Attael'M'netlt: Na.1;...e American Contact Lisi
ATKINS CMWO Phose 111 Recycled Wote, Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-021
Poge RTC-6
Novembe< 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Barona Group oC 1ho CDS)kln Gtande
Edwin Ron'.."<o. Chalfpcrson
1095 8atona Road Diegueoo
Lakeside , CA 92040
&ue@«>aron...nso,9(:IV
(619} 443,6612
61 ~-43-0681
La Posta Sand of MisslOn k'a:;ti;ons
Gwondofy'n Porada, O'lalrperaon
COMMENTS
HaUvo Atnef'lcen Contooce
Sam Oklgo Cou,,ty
September 24. 2012
Vle-Jas Band 04 Kuf'l"I0:(18Y Indians Alllhony A. P1oo, ChJll(JlerSOn
PO Box 908 Oieguenon<umoyaay
Alpine • CA 0 1903
tothautlOIM!at•osn,gov
(819) 44$-3810
(G19) «-5-6337 Fa,.;
Jamul lndlwl VYI~
Ravmo,nd Hunter, Chairperson
PO Box 1120 OiOgucno/Kumoyaay
~ard , CA9190S
P.O. Box. 612 o.gUQl"IQM'.umoyaay
Jamul • CA91935
gp,.vadb@ taPoStncrus.lno.
(619) 478-2113
6l9-47S-.212!,
San PeSQual Band 04 r&,sion Indian$ AIIOO E. Lawsc,n. Cnairpe,son
PO eox 385 Oiogoono
VdfOYCentcw. CA92082
alle.nlOsanpasquaJbancl.cotn
(71iOJ 749-3200
(780) 749-3878 Fa,,
S~n Sand ol thO Kt.SnVYNY Nnl5on o,niel Tucker, Chairperson
5459 Sycoan Road Oiogvo~yMy
EICojon • CA 92019
saifva@syo,ia,,•nsn.gcw
619 445-2()13
819 445•1927 Fax
ja,nun-z GtlScidY .net
(619)669'-,,4785
(619) 669--48178 • Fox
Mt,a Gtanae 8anCI oC ~sslon lndlarls. Mork Aom&ro. Ch6vperson
P.Ob270 Olegutno
Santo Y$'Ab0!, CA 92070
mosag<andeband@msn.com
(780) 782-3816
(760) 782<!092 Fax
Pala Bond of Mlsaiofl 1ndilW'IS
H1$IOl'IC Pt°'6Nll!Son Offiee/Shas.18 G3U'Jhen
3S00fl l'olll f~ Ro.Id. luiSGrtO P~ki. , CA 92059 Cupono
PM850
(760) 89H3615
S9,iW!Jhltn@pi,lo1lnbo.com
(760) 742-3189 Fax
Tllil-llt--.-a,,aflllM\IIMflfM~
~~-a.t.ro.--N•w-.~of.,_t&IIIM<J••-,i,iGIJM--..0ifl ....... J06Ud ... ~•nll~Codll
S..llollsc-tJ ... •-f'IMlc"'-C--.•llll$MIIM.-,M•IM....,._,.._ow._
Thflt"-41J~a.t1W~I\II/M,l,.......,.._lb,...,..,.,. .. ,.......,,_Nkwl""~
sCltll*3"104:t:C:(QAN91k•lllf~: .. _......,._......,.~ .. NPNM■ffk)'4' .... W•lff~IJlc,o-
i,,-.CJt,ol ~s.., OltQIOC--,,, Cllhrta
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE DI IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
ATKINS CMWO PhOse Ill Recycled Wole< Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Poge RTC-7
November U, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
Nall\lc AmGrlcan Cont.acts
San Otego County Sej>lember 24,, 2012
Paun-a & VUir't\8 Rose,vatiOn
RandaU ... Joi, Chalroer>On
P.0.8ox3G9 Lulsono
Pauma Valley CA 92061
paunweseM1ti0n@aot..co,n
(700) , .. 2~12851
(760) 7•12-3422 Fax
Ainoon Band ol Mission Mldlons
Vinetf\l Whippte, Tribat Histo,tc Prealfonv. OfflCtt
P.O. Box 68 Lulsono
Valley Cooler, CA 92082
twotle@rfl'\COf'AAbt.org
(760) 29N!G3S
(760) 297-.2639 Faic
Kwaayn,11 t.agooa Sand of Mission ~ians Carmen Luc,s
P.O. 8o.x 775 Olegueno.
PinaVdey , CA91962
(61$) 709·4207
tna,:, ~~nd ol Mission Indians Ra OMlo.~
200$ S. E900tldlclo 8'Ycl. Olegucno
EscondldO , CA 92025
(760) 737-7828
(760) 747•8568 Fax
rtN.IIM1'._...,, .. ..,._,__., .. ~
Plume VIJllfJy Band Of LulsotiO lnd!Gnt
Bannae Calac. Tribal CoU'd Member
P.O. 8o.x 369 L.ulHOO
P&Jffli'l Vdlev CA 92001
bcM aealac@aot.com
(700) 617•2812
(760) 7◄2-3422 • FAX
Ah:oti Band ol Mesloo lndlarw Bo Manelll, Q\alrperson
P.O. 8ox 68 Luiseno
Valley Cen•t• CA $2082
bomaUe'ltl@eolcom
(760) 7 49.1 OS 1
{760) 749-8001 Fwc.
San P-dSQual Band ol Indian• KtlSlio 0totc0, enwonmento1 Coord!n.atof
P.O. BOlt 365 LUl,eno
Valley Ceotor, CA 92062 Otegueno
(760) 7<9-3200
C<M.nCI@sa,_,a$Ql.la1t,1>1t.org
(760) 74~76 Fax
E~lu~ ltlbal Ofllco w• Mleklin, Extc\ANO Oln:tCIO(
4054 Wil!OW$ RO&ld OIOgueno/Kumeyuy,
Ali,lno , CA 91i01
wmieklnOIO-Mfn91CX;k.OOl
(619) 4.<t5-v315 .. voice
(619) «5·:$1126 -Usx
~., ... jh;f ___ .,.,,,,_.,.,l,_~....,.._ .... d.C...0.i'-cl""'..-..9'U.lflMllll ..... lley~ ·•~'°"·"'-•,..,~""-C.~~--to01 ...... ~---co...
l 1119lotl1:l~lor_.-'llllfc.ll~Affltll--"llt ..... fllWIM,I_,_.._.,.......
~UOtt0."1CEQ41111k•d~fWPOINI ..... -..U .. ~ ... -..PNM.Mt,a.oWW111t.......«,::~111
lnhCl!Jl•<:n--S.Olil,o~.c.Al-i..
ATKINS CMWD PhOse III Recycled Wale< Project, IS/MND (EIA 12-021
Page RTC-8
COMMENTS RECEIVEO ON THE PHASE UI IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
Natt-I~ Ame,tcan Contocbc
San Diego Counly 5-pternbor 24, 2012
San Luts Roy Band of Mbslon fndlans Cultural ()epartmenl
1889 SuniOl Orf..-e Lutseno
Vlsla • CA mat Cupeno
760-724-8505
760•724--2172. fax
l.a Jolla 8"od of MISSIOO Indians
LaYomc Peck. Chalrwoman
22000 1-ighway 76 Lubeno
Pauma Vall0')I CA 92061
rob,roY4tlGi()llO-n$n,go,.,
(780) 7•2-3796
(760) 742·170rl Fax
lc>al Nalion of 8.:inta YsabOI
Cline Un&on. Ch'racio, of OJ1urBI R~
P.O. Box 507 OicgoenoA<u,noya,ay
Santa Ysabel• CA 92D70
q1lnlon7SOaol.com
(780) 80G-58&4
Cj!lnton 738801.com
lntol'•Ttibal CUll:ut(ll Ac$0u1ce Ptotoclion Councl Frank 8tO'Nn, Coordi!n&lor
240 8rown Rom:! OleguenoA<i.meyaav
N,)lne • CA91901
tr.ulkbrown5928@9ma11.com
{81 'ii) 884-6"37
Kum,yaay Qllutal AepatM,llon Cornmiltee Betrb Patpa. Vice 6pokof>'P8r&OI'\
1095 &rot'la Road Oieguenolt<:1.Jmeyaey
Lako5'clo , CA 92040
(819) 478.-2113
(KCAC ts a Colalk>n 01 12
l<l.ftl8Yaay Goveo'WneOts
""""'9...i...oit111111M..__,..,.,. _,.,....,,.. .. .,..........,,,~ .. .,_.111~1nuo1_,_.,._,..,,c-.
ht!Jonfft7 .... o,ltt,fP\lblk:"--CodlWd~50t1.Nolll>tfwlle~~
Tflla·••~r.t~IK.IIN ..... ..._,_,.Mffl,cpdloc\O!l ..... _foo1MIWOP04M
~2't120t!Ut;CfOA NeCk:eol~; PIQIINM •o,111111._.0M o.dli!_,.. '°''"~•~W1i,r ~--•
t,""Clf)'ulc.tl~:S.~~.C......\I,
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE Ill IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
ATKINS CMWD Phase Bl Recycled Water Projects IS/MND IEIA 12-02)
Page RTC-9
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
ru■arCO' Pde dean umermc:ort"Dtre:'1m :ron:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OISTRK:T 11, J)CV1$tO'N (W Pl.AN'Nl'NG
40SO TA YLOlt. ST, M.S, 140
$,\Hotl,tGQ.r;AflllO
l'lf~ {Ot,)61MMO
fAX C619)"""l9t
Tf"Y 711 _.,._
c-1.
Septembc: 24, :!012
Ms.a.rl>araKCM<dy
City ofc.rlsbad
l63S Faraday Avmuc
Catbbed. CA 92008
Oellt Ms. K<Mcdy:
11.SD•S
PM 44.07-S0.68
c.rlmd MWO Pb ... Ill R«~lcd Water
MND /SCH #2012091049
The CatiComia Department of Transportation (Caltnns) reccjvcd lhe Mitigated NcgOitive
Declaration (MND) for the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase JU Rceyded
Watcr projcct(SCH #20l209l049) for the City of Carl,bad. Caltmns W the foUowing
comments:
Any utility C10$$inp or freeways will need an eocroach.rncn1 pen:nil from Callnns. PJcase rcCcr
to Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual
lbttD://www dot&ibaovt1ta{lmffoostdevdoosery/pcrmits/tneroachmrot wroitt rnarnw6ndcx ht mD for pdanoe on urility e:ocroachment.
AdditiOMJ i.ofonnation rc,sardio.g. cneroacbmcnl pennits may be obcaiccd by contacting the
CallrMS Permit> Offico at (619) 688-61S8. Eorly coord;natioA with Caltnns is stroogly advised
for all encroacbn:ient permits.
J! you have any ques1ions. plea$C contact LciJa lb~ Oe\'etopmem Review Branch, at (619)
688-6802.
Si1;'(F r: ARMSTRONG, Chief
Development Review Branch
C-1.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND ANO RESPONSES
RESPONSES
1mu C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CAITRANS)
This comment states that any utility crossings of freeways WIii need an encroachment
permit from Clhrans and provides sources of information regardlng encroachment
permits. Table 1 on p.age A•3 In Appendix A of the IS/MNO, Federal, State, or Local
Permits and Approvals, has been revised to include encroachment permits from
Caltrans In the list of appli~ble permits for the proposed project. An encroachment
permit would potentially be required for Phase Ill Project component ES S that
proposes construction on either side of State Route 78.
/\TKINS CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Waler Projecls IS/MNO (EIA 12-02)
Pog<> RTC-10
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
'" .:~ 0 Department of Toxic Substances Control
October 9, 2012
•
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
Garlsbad Munlclpal Waler District
1835 Faraday Av,inue
Carlsbad. CalWornia 92008
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD) PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER
PROJECT. (SCH#2012091049), SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Dear Ms. Kennedy.
The Oepanment ofToxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reoel\/<!d your submitted Initial
Study (IS) and a draft Mitigated Negattve Declaration (MND) ror the above-mt?nlloned
project. The following pcojeet description is stated in your document
"The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill Project) Is located In the City of
Carlsbad (City) in th.e County of San Diego, Catifornia, within the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District (CMWD) sal'IIC8 area. A smaa pottion of 1he project (EJ<pansion Segment
4A) is l<>Cated in the City ol Vista and small component (Expansion Segment 5) is
located in the City ol Oceansido. The proposed J)<Ojcet, Phase Ill, would expand
CMWO's recycled water system to the north area o, carl&bad and begin initial expansion
Into neighboring water service agencies. l'he Phase lll proiect woukt also install 96,600
linear feet of pipelines, rek>cate or construct a new storage tank. convert existing potab!o
water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to
use recycled water In eight oxpanslon sogment locations throughout the project area.
The Phase Ill project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. Existing
I.and uses in the project vicinity include residences. commercial centers, industrial and
business parl<s, and utility inlrutruclure. The Phase Ill project would be constructed
within the Carisbad Wale, Recycling Facillly (CWRF), Within existing and planned
roacl\vay right of way (ROW). and within the Burlinl)ton Northern and Santa Fe Raltway
(BNSF) raHroad right of way."
red on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments:
0·1. 1) The MNO should evaluate I.Hhether conditions within the Project area may pose a
throat to human heatth °' the environment. Following ace the databases of some
of the regulatory agencies:
l>-1.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
IETTU D. DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUIISTANCES CONTROi
This comment states that the IS/MNO should evaluate whether conditions within the
project area mi'Y pose a threat to human health or the environment, and recommends
a fist of databases of regulatory agencies. Hazards and hazardou.s materials are
evaluated in Section 8 cf the IS chec.kllst., A recotds s~a,ch was conducted for the
proposed project In February 2012, as described in Section 8 (d) of the IS checklist, and
included the Geo Tracker and EnviroStor databases, as recommended by the comment,
The Geo Tracker Database identified approximately SO reoorded sites along the
Phase Ill project alignments and one near the Carlsbad Wastewater Recycling Facility
(CWRF). Open cne.s 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 cne cleanup site along ES 2, one permitted faclllty (Vista lndustr1al
Products) and one school site investigation along ES 4A, and one site evaluation of a
dry cleaning facility along ES 9.
A 'JK INS CMWD Phose lit Recycled woter Projects IS/MND (EIA t2-02) I' Page RTC-1 t
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
0-1.
cont.
0-2.
0-3.
0-4.
COMMENTS
Mo. Barbara Kennedy
October 9, 2012
Page2
National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United Slates
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• EnviroS1or (formerly CalSttes): A Dalabaso primarily used by tho
California Department of Toxic Substances Control., accessible through
DTSC's website (see below).
• Resource ConsOMltion and Recovery Information System (RCRJS): A
do!abasa of RCRA facRilies thal Is malntalnad by U.S. EPA
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
lnform<11ion S)'lltem (CERCLIS): A da!abase ot CERCLA sites 1hal is
mailllained by U.S.EPA
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
Ca!tfornla Integrated Waste Management Board whi¢h consists of both
open aa well as etosed and Inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
• Geo Tracker: A List lhat is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
• Local Counlles and Ct1ies maintain frsts fOf' hazardous substances cleanup
sites and ieaking underground storage tanks.
• The United Stales Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Ang,,les, CaUfomia, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Siles (FUOS).
2) The MND should ldentify the mechanism to Initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site within the proposed Project area that may be
contemioated, end the government agancy to provfde appropriate regulatory
oversight If necessary, OTSC would require an oversight agreement In order to
review such documents.
3) Atty environmental investigations, samplillQ and/Of remediation for a site should
be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has Jurisdiction to oversee hazardous sobstan<:e cleanup. The findings of
any investigation:s,, including any Phase I or II Envi1onmental Site Assesament
lnvostigations should be summanzed In the document. All sampling resulls in
which hazardous substances were found above regutotory standotdt t.houkt bo
clearly summarized in a table. All closure. certification 0< remediation approval
reports by regulatory agencies should be included in the MNO.
0-2.
0-3.
0-4.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the IS/MND should identify the mechanism to initiate arty
required lnvesttgat1on or remediation within potentialty contaminated areas. Section
{d) of the IS checklist already Identifies this mechanism through mitigation measures
Haz•l and Haz-2. Mitigation measure Haz·l requires construction monltorlng by
an individual licensed in the State of California to as.Se$$ soil conditions for the
potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydroc.arbon
contaminated soils, these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at
a licensed facility in aocordance wfth 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 control.$ and
measures that would be put In place to prevent and/or reduce the risks posed to
site workers, the public and the environment i.n 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 OEH for approval.
This comment states that any environmental investigations, sampling, and/or
remediation should be conducted under a workplan approved and overseen by a
regulatory agency. As described in response to comment 0-2, mitigation measure
Haz•2 requires a construction woder health and safety plan that would be submitted
to the OEH for approval. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils,
these soils shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed faclllty In
accordance with DEH requirements, as required in mitfgcition measure Haz-1.
This comment states that if demolition would be tequired, an investigation should
be conducted for the presence of hazardous materials. The proposed project would
not require demolition of a NV buildings. Existing roadway pavement may be removed
to install pipeline; however these paved areas do not contain mercury o, asbestos
containing materials. Mttigation measure Haz~l 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 encounteting hydrocarbon
4) ff buildings, other structures. asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are befng c.ontamlnated soils, these sons shall be properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a
planned to be demolished, an Investigation shoukl also b& conducted for the licensed facility in accordance with OEH requirements.
ATKINS CMWO Phose Ill Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-021
Page RIC-12
Novembe< 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
0-4.
cont.
0-5.
0-6.
0•7.
0•8,
0·9.
COMMENTS
Ms. Barbara Kennedy
October 9, 2012
Paga3
presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing
matorials (ACMs). If olller hazardO<Js chemicals. lead-l»sed paints (LPB) or
product$, mereu_ry Of' ACMs are identified, proper precautions shouJd bo taken
during demolition activities.. Additionaliy, the contaminants shoukf be
remediated in oomplianoe with California environmental regulations and p01icies,
5) Project oonstroction may require soil excavation °' filling In certain areas.
Sampfing may be required. If soil is coolaminated, it must be properly disposed
and not simply placed rtl another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions
(lDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, ff the pro!act proposes tc Import
soiJ to backfill lhe areas excavated. sampling Should be conducted to ensure
lhat 1he imported &oil is ftee of contamination.
6) Hum~m heolth end the environment of sonsltJve receptots should be protected
during the field actMties. If necessary, a health risk assessment overseen and
approved by the appropriate oov•=nt agency should be conducted by a
qualified health risk asse5,3or to determine if there are, h.:avc been, or witl be,
any releases of hazardous. materials that may pose a risk to human health or the
environment
7) If the project area was used for agricultural, llves.tock or related activities, onslte
soils and groundwater might contafn pestlctdcs, agrlcultural chemleal, organic
W8$te or other related residue. Proper Investigation, and remedial actions, if
necessary, should be conducted under Ille oversight of and approved by a
govemme-nt agency at the sjto prior to construction of the project.
8) If tt is determilled that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated b'f lhe
ptoposed operations, the wastes must be managed in acc:ordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Wa:!le Control Regulations
{Cslifornia Code or Reguilations, Tltle 22, Olvision -4.5). If it is determined lhat
hazatdous wastes wil be generated, the facility should otso obtain a United
States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting
(800) 618-6'942. Certain hazardous waste treatment proce$$es or ha.iardous
materials, handling, storage or uses may require authOfization from the local
Certified un;fied P109ram Agency (CUPA~ Information about the requirement
for authorization een be obtained by contacting your local CUPA
9) OTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Ovel'$ight
AQreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a
Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional
information on the EOA or VCA, please see
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanupJBrownflelds., 0t contact Ms. Mal"yam Ta$nif-
Abbasl, OTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489.
0 -5.
0-6,
1).7.
0-8.
0·9
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that contaminated soll may be encountered and should be
propedy disposed. Consistent with the recommendations of this comment, mitigation
meas-ure Haz•l requires constr'uction monitoring by an indrvidual licensed in the State
of California to assess soil conditions for the potential pr'eS<?nce of hazardous materials.
In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated solls, these soils shall be
properly tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with OEH
requirements.
This comment states that a health risk assessment should be conducted to determfne
if there has been o, will be any release of hazardous materials as a result or ptoject
oonstruction. An appropriate assessment i.s already included in the IS/MNO. Hazards
and hazardous materials are evaluated in Section 8 of the IS checklist, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials. A records search was conducted for the proposed project In
F-ebruary 2012, as described in Section 8 d) of the IS checklist. Construction of ES 2,,
ES S, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would have the potential to encounter contaminated soil
during construction acttvitfe.s and expose construction workers to a significant hazard.
Therefore, mitigation measures Hat•l and Haz•2 are ldentifled to reduce potential
hazards to a less than significant level.
This comment Includes recommendations fo( sites that were previously used for
agricultural activities. The project does not propose any components oo lands
previously used for agriculture. The Phase Ill Project components would be located
within existing roadways, CMWO property, and a golf course. Therefore, this comment
does not apply.
This comment lists applicable regulations for facilities that would generate hazardous
wastes. M discussed in Section 8 (a) of the IS checklist, the CWRF expansion would
be the onty Phase Ill Project component with the potential to generate hazardous
waste. The CWRF wrrently uses chemicals and other hazardous materials In Its
treatment pr«esses. The CWRF e,cpansion would result in addltiooal use of these
materials, including chlorine. A Hazardou.s Material.s Business Plan (HMBP) has already
been prepared for the CWRF in accordance with DEH, Hazardous Materials Division
requirements. The proposed new CWRF treatment facilities would be required to be
Incorporated Into the existing CWRF HMBP. Disposal of CWRF equipment, such as
filters, at the end of its lifecycle would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state
and local laws and regulations. Therefore, the commenter's recommendations have
already been incorporated into the IS/MNO.
This comment describes services that the OTSC c-an provide. It does not address
the adequacy or accuracy of Information provided In the IS/MNO. No response Is
necessary.
ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Wote< Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Poge RIC-13
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
Ms. Barbara Kenoe<ly
October 9, 2012
Page4
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE I11 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please con1act Rafiq Ahmed, Project
Manager, ilt rahmed@dtsc,ca goy. or by phooe at (714) 484~5491.
Sincerely.
(l_,ftJl,L..--1
Rafiq Ahme<!
Project Manager
Brownfietds and Environmental Restoration Program
cc: Govetnor's Office of Planning and Rt-search
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
$tate.cfearinghou¥@9or.Cf qoy.
CEQA Tracl<ing Center
Department of Toxic SubstanO&S Control ,
Office of EnvironmentBJ Planning and Analysis
P.O. Box 506
Sacramento, C-atifomi8 95812
Ann: Nancy Ri!t8r
nritter@dtsc.ca.gov
CEOA#3654
ATKINS CMWD Phase II Recycled Water Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Poge RTC-14
Novembe< 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
E-1.
COMMENTS
~
Water Boards
Stet& Water Resourcn Contrcl Board
OCT I 7 2012
8arb;](O KeMedy
Carlsbad -~I Water OISlrtCI
1635 Faraday Avenue
~n Diego. CA 92008
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
i):::o.-Jo. e ~~-
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION {IS/MND) FOR
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (OISTRICT); PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER
PROJECT (PROJECT): SAN DIEGO COUNTY; STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO, 2012091049
We underatand that the Obtrlct is pur,ulng Clean Water Sttite Revolvl"O Fund (CWSRF)
financing for this Project (CWSRF No. C-06-7151•110). As a funding agency and a stite
agency with jurisd;ction by law to preserve, enhance, and restore the quamy of California's
weiter ~. the Stato Wat-er Re'°uroea Control So.e.rd (State Water 8o¥rd) is provklfng the
folowing infonnation and comments on the IS/MNO to be prepared for the Proj;ec:t.
Pkta .. pro,lde us with u,e lollowlng dOCl.mOnts ac,p!lcable to the proposed Pro)eCI following the E-1.
Ol$trkt'$ CaPtorma Environmental OU#lky Act (CEQA) prouts.: (1) one copy of the draft and
final IS/MNO, ('2) the resOlution adOj)!lng the lS/MND and making CEOA findings, (3) all
com.manta received dlling the review period and the Oistrid:'s response to those oommenta, (4)
the ador>1ed M;llgallon Monltonng and ROl)Olt<lg Program (MMRP), am! (5) the Notice of
Octormination fifed wfth tho San Diego County Clerk and the Go'Jtf'nor's Office or Plannkig and
Researeh, State Clearinghouse. In addition, we would 8J>P{edate nodoes of any hearings or
meetings held regarding enrir<>nmento\J review of arty proftet. to be funded by the ~te W;iter
Boa<d.
The State Water Board, Division of Financial Assistance. is 11!$ponsible tor administering the
CWSRF Program. The primary purpose for the CWSRF Program is to implemenl the Clean water Act and various state laws by providing financial assistance fOf wastewater treatment
faciities neoossary to Pf9Vdnt water polution, recyde water. correct nonpoint source ond 1t«m
drainage pollution problems., provide for Mtuary enhal')CCment. and thef'oby procect and p,omote
hea!th, s.afety and v.-etfare of tha inhabitants of the s.tato. ThO CWSRF Program provkJC$ low-
Interest funclng equal to one·half of the most re0ent State-General Obligatioo Bond Rates with a
2()..yt.ar ttfm. Applications, are accepted and processed conlinuously. Ptease rerer to the State
Water Board's CWSRF website at:
www.wpterbpafd•.pa.qovfwater lf§u«t:(progmmNs@OIS loMltlrftiOSktlli &blml
The CWSRF Program ts partialy funded by the United States Erwfronmentaf Protection ~•ncy
111d ,oqulres addi:UOnal ·ceOA-Plus• environmental doclmentation and review. Four
onclosures are lndvct.d th:ait further expfaln the CWSRF Prog1am e.nvlroM\Gntal rov',ew p,oceu
Jl'ld U\e addi11onal federal requlrementa.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PliASE 11I IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
IETTER E. STATE WATER RESOURCES CDNTROI SOAR0
This comment states that it Is the understanding of the State Water Re$0urc:es Control
Board (SWRCB) that the CMWO is pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
financing and outline-S the requirements to obtain funding. It is uncertain at this time
whether or not the CMWO will pu(Sue CWSRF funding for this project. However, if
CMWO does choose to pursue this funding, theywlll comply will all applicable SWRCB
requirements.
ATKINS CMWD Phase IIIRecvcledWate< Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-I5
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
E-1 ..
cont.
COMMENTS
The State Water Soard ls re,quirtd to consult ditldly wflh ag•nci~ ,esponslbte for
imptementlng tOderat cniArOl'IMentOI laws and regutatlona.. Arty onviroMlentaJ i&sues mlHd by
federal agencies or their repre$Onl3ti\res 'MIii need to be resotvod p,lot to State WaV!< Board
approval of a CWSRF fino~ commitment for the ~Oj>Oltd Project Fot furthet &nformatlon
on the CWSRF Program, ptea,e contact Mr. Ahm~ Kashkof, at (916) 341.SSSS.
ll is lmportarit to nole tnal plior to a CWSRF flna~ commiiment, pro;ects: arc s~ect to
pr'(MSJQ'1$ of ttle FecJen'.11 Endangered Spocies Act (ESA). and must otMain Section 7 ctearanoe
from tho United StalH Oepartmonl of the lnlerior, Fish and \Wdlife Service {USFWS), ancllor
lho United States Oepartm.en1 of Commerce National Oceanic 0nd Atmotpherlc Administration,
National Marine Flaheries Service (NMFS) fO( '¥1'/ poCentlal effeds to spectid-SlP11.tS soecte,.
Pl<>aso be ad-nsed that the Stale W,u, Board wilt consult with USFWS. ond/0t NMFS re9arding
all leder.-I speclal•shltus spcclos thaJ t:ha Project h.as the potential to impact if 1he Project ia lo
be funded under the CWSAF Program. Tho District will need lo lderdy whether lhe Projed will
involve any direct effects from construction 8etMUes. or indirect effects aueh as growth
Inducement. that m;,.y ;tfect ffildgrally listed lhrea.lcned, endangered. Of candidate specie1. th.at
are known, ot h;tve a poCenlial to oc:cur on-cite, in lhe surrounding afeas. or 1n the a.ervice ama.
and 10 identify appUeable COl'\Servation meaklros to rcduoe such effects.
In additton, CWSRF projects must comply w.1h federal laws perlalning to cult.KIii re,ources., ·
specifically Saction 106 of U>e Notionol Hiotoric Pr..ervallon N:.t. The State Water Boo,d has
responslbillty (01 ensuring conlpllonoo with Scet1on 106, and must con,sult dirocit,, with tM
canfomla State Historic Preservation Offloer (SHPO). SHPO eonsuttation i$ initiated Vltlen
$lJffldent infOffl'latlon Is provided by~ CWSRF a~lll If the Oisttiet decides to pursue
CWSRF t'inancing. pteaso roUHn a consultant um meots tM Sec:tetary of the In1er1or's
Professional Ovoll";cations Slandal'd5 (vtt,w g OP$ 99Y09Sfl-la»'/ftCCI\ ♦JOdt R htM\ to prepare
a Sec;clon 106 oompliance. NJ)Of'l
Note that the District 'Mil need le> identify the Area of Potential Effects (APE). including
construction and staging areas. and the depth ol any excavation. The APE is lhree~ensional
and includes au areas that may be effed.ed by the Project. The APE lnctudes !he surface area
and extel'l<b below ground to lho doplh of any P<ojsd excavations. The rOOOfda search reque&t
shouad be made for an a,t,a larger than the APE. The apptopdat& area variH ror different
projecl< but should be dra,w, Iorgo enoogh to p,ovid9 infom,alion oo whal types or ,;,eo may
cx:iM in the vicinity.
Ploas.e contact M5. SU9an Stewart at (918) 341·6983 lo find out more &.bQo.Jt the requftements,
&nd to initiate the Section 106 process.
ATKINS CMWD Phase I I Recycled wow Projects lS/MND fEIA 12-02)
Poge RTC-16
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND ANO RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
E-1.
cont.
E-2.
COMMENTS
Other fedeni& re(l'Jlrements pertineM to the PrOieet under the CWSRF Program Include the
folbwing:
A. Compliance with the Federal CleM Air Act: (a) Provide air quality studies that may have
been done for the Project and (b) if the Projed is in a nonattalnment area or alt8irrnent
area subject to a main1enance plan; (i) provide a aumm1:11y of the estimated emluions
(in tons per year) that ore expected from bOlh the construction and operation of the
Pro;ed for oach federal criteria poOutant in a nonattainmenl or maintenance are11. and
Indicate if the nonattairmcnt ~nation t5 moderote, serious. or severe flf applicable):
(ii) If cmtsslont am ebOvG the faderal de mit'imis leve.ls, but the Proje<.t Is tiz;e,d to moci
only the needs of cu-rent PoJ>l,Ation projectjons that are used In the app,O\led State
lmpktmenlation Plan for air quality, quantitetively inclic;ete how the prol)O$ed capacity
increase was calculated using populatfon p,oj•ctions.
B. Compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Ad:. identify whether the Profect is
Within a coastal zone and the status of any coordination with the C31i'omla Coast.al
CommiHfon.
C. Protedion of Wetlands: ld~tify any Portion of the p,oposed Profect area th1t .should be
evaluated for weUands or United Statn waters delineation by the United States Army
Coc-ps o1 Engineers (USACE}, or req!Mes a permit. from the USACE. and kientify the
&tatus of coordination with the USACE.
0. Compliance with the Fannlond Protection Pl>Hcy Ad:. Identify whether 1h& Project will
ruull In Iha oonversk,n of tatmland. S1a1e Iha status Of farmland (Prime, Unique-. or
Local and Statewide Importance) in the Project area and determine i! this area is under a
Williamson Act contract
E. Complie:noe \lhth the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Lisi 311Y birds protected under ttis act
that may bo lmpactod by tho Project Md Identify conservation meas.ures to minimize
Impacts,
F. Compltance with the Rood Plain Management Act: Jderttty whether or not tho ProJoct b
In a Rood Management Zone and in~e a oor,y of tho F~deral Emorgenoy
M;inagement Agency flood ?OM maps for the area.
G. Compliance \IAth the Wild and Scenic Rivera Act: kfentify Yttlelher or not any Wild and
Scenic Rivers would be potenlial!y impacted by 1he Project and Jnd,de conserva!lon
measures to minimize such lmpads.
Fo!IC>Wi,g are speclfic comments on the Olslrtct's ISfMNO:
1. Mitig1tion Meawre Bio--1A stclles th.lt "Prior to rQmOYal or ctam~e ot any~~~ or
any tree pn.mlng or removal operations during the p(irnc ncs.ting seasons, that being
from March 15 to May 30, a qualified biOk>gCSt shall survey the trees to determine if there
arc any ac:dvc niMts wtthin 500 feet of the area of tree remoYal or pruning: However,
Pag• 31, uooer Biologk:al Resources, mencions that the raptor ncsling season is trom
January 1>.tuly 31. the general nHting se-ason k from February 1-August 31, and
Mitigation Measure Bio-10 states that the general breeding season l5 from January 1$-
September 15,
E-2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MN0 ANO RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that there are Inconsistencies between the breeding seasons
or nesting seasons reJ)OC"ted in the IS/MNO and that the breeding season should be
consistent with california Department of Fish and Game {COFG) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Serv1ce (USFWS) requirements.
The discussion of breeding seasons in Section 4 a) of the Initial Study checklist has
been revised to be consistent with the more conservative breeding season identified
in mitigation measure.s 8iO•lA and Bio•lD (January 1S to September 15). The breeding
season definition Is consistent with the breeding seasons ldenttfled in the Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan, which was approved by COFG and USfWS. The prime
breeding season identified in mitigation measure Bio•lA is not inconsistent with
the general breeding season, as Indicated by the commenter. The prime nesting
season corresponds to a peak time period within the geMral 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 81o--1A proposed within Section 4 of the lnltfal Study checkflst
includes pre~constrvction requirements for a qualified biologist to confirm, in
writing, that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occvr if project
construction iS planned to occur during any portion of the general breeding season
(January 15 to September 15). Nevertheless, to achieve consistency and improve
cJarity of the meisure, mitigation measure 810--lA has been revised a.s stated below
to remove reference 10 the prime nesting season and ensure that all pre•construction
requirements CO<f'espol\d with the entire general breeding season tfme period, To
further Improve clarity of the measure, mttigation measure B!o,.lA has also been
revised to replace the term .,vaeited .. with the statement, "'no longer active and all
nestlings have fledged the nest"'. Mitigation measure Bio--lA has also been revised
to clarify the timeframe for pre.construction surveys. Last, mitigation measure
Bio-lA re-quires the City to restrict construction activities to ensure tl\at no nest is
Inadvertently abandoned by a bird. The City is not proposing a measure to pursue and
require authoriution 0t a permit from the COFG or USFWS to purposely and actively
cause a nest to be abandoned; therefore, a provision for COFG and USFWS protocol for
vacating nests is not necessary. Mitigation measure Bio•lB ha.s been revised as follows
to clarify the timeframe for pre-construction surveys.
Bio.1A Avoidance of Nesh'ng Birds and Roptors. To prevent impacts to nesting
btrds, it>cludlttg roptors, protected under the federal MB'TA ond CDFG CMe,
the CMWO shall enforce the following:
Prior to constructipn actfvifie.s requiring the removal pruning or domoge
of on; adf•c 11£JfJ 91 uees sbrubt and moo·roode stcvttwes 1¢ o,.
bulldfngs, bridoa eg,J a,q t, et p.un:.,g o. , c,,,oooi ope.odo,.s during the
,,,,,-,re~ bcrcdfoq seoson,, that being from Mai els 15 to Mo1
:36Jqqyq,y 1 S to SCo«:mbec 15 the Cltv shall cctgfo a qualified bfologlst ~
.n,oil ,u, ,e, t111c t, cc, qyfqrm q ore:·mnstrocffon suwv to determine If there
ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Woler Projects IS/MND IEIA 12-02)
Page RTC-17
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
E-2.
cont.
E-3.
E-4.
E-5.
E-6.
E-7.
E-8.
COMMENTS
2. Please en&ure lhat the breeding season timcfr.wno Is consistent with lhe califoriia
Department of Fish and Game (DfG) and the UFWS requirements to avoid any
significant impact$ «-.iolation of toe M!g.ratcwy Blrd Treaty Aet (MBTA). If you have any
questions, pc.ase consult Ytith the OFG and USFWS regarding ne&ling susons for the
special s1atus s:pedes lis:ted with a high o, moderate pocentlal of occcxring within the
Project area. Specify how many days prior to construcdon (generaly 30 days) and the
tmeframo U'lat a qu~lrled bl~lst shall aurwy. In case of vaea~ nests, consul wilh
DFG ot USFWS for as,proprlate proeoool measures.
3,
4.
5.
6.
7,
In order to comp(y with the MBTA. please lndude additional mitlgation meaMJres tr birds
or nests of bird& tUbfod to tho MBTA ~ dlSCOveted oubide the preoooswction .survey
window. Pre-construction surveying must be done cklMg the general breeding soason.
not just during the p,wne breeding season, to prcY()Ol potOf'\Oal adveree effect to the bird
species.
lden<lty the 3-dlmenslonal /V'E lnclucf~ 1he depth ar thO proposed Project componerns
and p<ov\dc • map -tlng the location and boundary.
Page 1$-38 indiC3tOI that a. culturol resources records uareh was performed by Alkins
at the South coastal 1nronna1lon Center In January 2012 (Atkins 2012) f« the 2012
Master Plans EIR which Included the APE of the propo$0d Phase Ill Pt()fect. Pktase
lodicete if thls record$ search al$o included Twfn D sito, or tho CWRF expansion. or r, a
separate record$ search was performed to indude these areas.
Plo.:>se cend a copy of the tecOfdS search thQI was done, inclucfing the search request
and associated MDI>$, COpies of aite rKOrd5 and pravious studlet. fot areas within the
Project APE w\l be reqvired for SHPO conwltation. Please ldlndfy a.reas exhibiting
hig.h Old'laeotogical reSOIJfQO sens.it:Mty and include a map i"ldicatlng the reta.tive
sensftfvay of the protect areas in relation to the Project APE.
Ccnfirm lhal a Native Amer\Can C<>nslflauc>n has been completed based upon the .nUre
project a,ea by providing a copy of tho letter and mops sent to the Native Amoo(;an
Horitage Convnlnion, 4IS well as copies of the letters and maps sent to the Native
AmcnciJn& and other rntere,ted parties. Follow-up with phono ca11, or email, and include
a log of attempted contacis and any respoMes received. Follow-up on responses and
iocluctc the information In the discu,~lot1 on consuttation.
8. Demonstrate that The Seciion 106 compianoc eff<>r1s and reports have been prepared
by a qualified researcher by providing c;opiM of resumes of the Atctlaeologl5ts
c:ondueting and providing oversight to the Section 106 reponing according to the
54!crctary ot the' ln1etlor's Prof~sslonal Qualibtions Swldards
{wwN.«.nps.gov/logrllfw/ :wch_stnds_9.htm).
E-3.
COMMENTS RECEIVEO ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
are any active nests withfn 500 feet a/the areoJ, tyft, ec , c.1:ouo( o. p, u.1i.19.
pion ant for construction. The SUCYt:Yi shall take qlqq: no more tbaa 30 ®JI$
ptipr to the start ofconstruch'on for 9 qqrpcylpr PCPifCl COfflP00COt
If any active r.J/Jllfl!ftests ore located QJl.JlLwithin 500 feet of the areas
p(qaaPd far wastmc:ttoo or If 90y octfye oontriot 4Poabirdl nests ore
loroted on or within ~00 feet of the PctPS q/oooed fM @nroetfQa tht
Citvsholl a:toin o quqlifiecJ biologist ta flog and deroormte the locqtf9ns of
the OCtU oodffl90itQC(OO$tfuttion qctfy/ff(5. No beep, u,,i,19 Ci i(IIIO..OI
ope, oao,., co,1 voas:crocrtoa ocNvlt1rs sbo/1 occur unt11 U is drttrmioedbv
o qµqlified bioJpqist that the nests are .:owled OP Jqnqer ocnve and qi/
OtUUOOS have fledged the nest or until the end of the prime ~breeding
season, whichever occurs later. .i• o&dvt.km, p, for to on, ts ec , cmo ,a,• 01
p1u,:i11g opc,otio11J p, opened cob.Ve of the p, .'.11e 11csti,1g Jt0J011 bot wif.11h1
r11.c pe.iod ofJoauo,, JS fo Scptcmbe, JS, o.Aovalifted biologist shall
cor1/irm., in writing, that no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities
would occur 9$ 9 result qf cpaUatCtiQO qafvitfes. Oocume.ntot1on from o
qualified biologist consistent with these requlremer1ts shall be submitted to
the City Planner for review and approval. A note to thfs effect shall be placed
on the construction plans.
Bio--18 Pre-COnstructfon 8/ologlcal Resource Surveys. Prior to COMttuctfon of
project components ES 1, ES 1, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 that will occvr within
ditturbe-d or developed land, but ore sited immediately adjacent to an
undeveloped open space oreo (I.e., an area support1ng narvra/ized habitat,
sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status
species), the CMWD shall retain a oualifted biologist to ~rform a pre•
constructior1 survey to verify txisting biological resources adjacent to the
project construction areos. The WCYM Jhql( Wkt plqcc 09 more lhPa 30 dovs
prlqr to the start qf '90Stmctfoa {pr Q pqatcu(qc PfOICCt Q?CVPPOeot
This comment states that pre-construction surveys should be done during the entire
bre-eding season, and mitigation measures should be identified for discovery of nests
outside of the preconstruct1on survey window. The pre.-cot1struction su,vey required
In mitigation measure Blo-18 ls not limited to the breeding season. Pre-construction
surveys are required for all project components, regardless of construction schedule.
Therefore, this recommendation has already been incorporated in the IS/MNO.
E-4. This comment requests that the IS/MNO Identify the depth, locatfon, and boundary
of the Phase Ill 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 of the pipe and Its depth. The locadons of the project components
are identified in f-igures 2 throu.gh 12. The boundaries of each component are
described in Table 1, Envlroomental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses. As described
in this tible, the project components would be located within existing roadway and
railroad right-<>f•way, within existing CMWO facilities, or within an existing golf course.
/\TKINS CMWOPhose 11 Recycled Waler Projects IS/MNO (EIA 12-02) Novembef 14. 2012
Page RTC-18
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Thank you for the opportun!ly to rCMIW th& Oistrtct•s IS/MNO. If you h.ave any questions or
concerns, please feet free to contact me at (916) 341-5855, or by email at
AKashko!i@waterbo~rds.ca.gov, or oontac:t Jessica Collado at (916) 341-7388, or by email at
JCo!l.ado@waterboards CB goy.
Ahmad Kashkoli
Senior Em/ironmental Scientist
cc: State Clearinghous.c
(Re: SCH# 2012091049)
P.O. Box 3044
Sactamen'IO, CA 95812·3044
E•S.
E-7.
COMMENIS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment requests clarrfication whether the Twin D s.ite 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 Plan.s EIR.
This comment requests a copy of the cultural resovrces record search and associated
archaeological sensitivity maps. The commenter is requesting this information for the
purposes of consultation required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF financing.
Should the CMWD pursue CWSRF funding In the future, the CMWO wlll comply will all
applicable State Water Resources Control Board requirement$.
This comment requests copies of correspondence with the NAHC In or'der to confirm
that Native American consultation has been completed. A description of Native
American consultation is provided in response to comment 8-2. As part of preparation
of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, Atkins communicated with Mr. Dave Singleton of the
NAHC in January and February, 2012. Additionally, letters to each of the tribal contacts
identi~ by NAHC were sent by Atkins on February 24, 2012. The letters described
the proposed project and contained maps of the proposed CIP locations, including
the Phase Ill project components. Copies of the Native American correspondence are
provided a.s Appendix Oto the 2012 Master Plans EIR, avallable for review at the Oty of
C3r1sbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
E-8. This comment requests demonstration of Section 106 compliance. Section 105
consultation is required as part of the process to obtain CWSRF ffnar\Clng. Should the
CMWO pur,ue CWSRF funding In the future, the CMWO will comply will all applicable
State Water Resources Control Board requirements.
ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Wale< Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
-Poge RIC-19 November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
9 \c.co c 0
+ "• .. ,. ~ ~
-~ San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. c:; ,-~ '1f ,.. Environ.mental Review Committee
~ .,
i:,.., o~' 28 September 2012 •
'O ♦
f.1.
f.2.
<oc, c►'-
To:
Subject:
Ms. Barl>ara Kennedy
Planning Divisioo
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
C.,lsbld, Calif omia 92008-7J 14
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Phase DI Recycled Water Project
EIA 12-02
Deat Ms. KenMdy:
I have reviewed the subjtct OMND on behalf of this committee of the Son Diego Cow,ty
Arcbaeologi<al Society.
Based on the informatioa contained in the DMND and initial st\lldy, we have the foUowina
comments.:
I. Paae IS•37 of the initial study states that. for arcu wbicli '°wo-u.ld involve instaJlalioo of new
pipelines located entirely within existing roadways•, that •Archaeological resources within
the roadway ROW would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction.• Any
number of cases could be cited to disprove this unfouoded assumption. The Cil)' of SM
Diego has requited monitoring in many situations for Just such wort an.d ~ coeountered
numerous archaeological deposits which \lo~te, in fact. protected by the roadway rather th.vi,
destroyed by iL Ms. Myra Herrmann at the City (mbemnaon@sandiego.gov) can verify that Cb<,.
2,. To address this possibility, a qualified ~baeologisl mutt review the entire. route or these
new pipe-tines and identify any ueas where unkno"'-n subswface dtposits could exist. I(. for
example, development iook place in an area prior to CEQA imp1ementation requiring
<:Ultural JCSOU:roes studies, all but 1he ponions of cultural deposits could have been destroyed
without their being rtcorded. Arc.haeologiCAl and Native American monitoring should then
be required for lhose portions of the routes of the new pipelines., with detailed requin:ments
addressing the procedures to be followed if resources a.re cncountcred, up to and including
analysis, repon preparation and cu.radon of cultural material not associated witb human
remains.
P,0 ,8ox81106 San0iego.CA92138-110& (858)~
F•2,
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MNO ANO RESPONSES
RESPONSES
!ETTER F. SAN DIEGO COUNTY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC.
l'his comment states that the conclus-ion in Section 5 (b} of the IS checklist that
archaeologie.al resources within previousty disturbed areas is unfounded betaU$-t
archaeological resources have been uncovered during similar construction activities in
the Oty of San Diego. The IS/MND recognizes that, due to the high cultural resource
sensittvity in the area, unknown cultural resources may still be uncovered during
ground disturbing construction activitfes. Appendi>< A of the IS/MND, Regulatory
Compliance and Project Design and Construction Features, includes a procedure
for the accidental discovery of archeological resources that would reduce potential
impacts to potentialtv significant unknown archaeologia,1 re.sources to a less than
sJgnlflcant level. If subsurface cultural resources arc~ encountered during construction,
or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource·s is
encountered, all ground·dlsturblng actfvlty wm cease within 100 feet of the resource.
A qualified archaeoJogist will be retained by the Oty or CMWO to assess the find, and
to determine whether the resource requires further study. No further grading will
occur In the area of the discovery until the City and CMWO approves the measures to
protect the resources.
This comment states that a qualrffed archaeologist should review the entire route of
the proposed pipelines and identify any areas where unknown subsurface deposits
could exist. Section S of the IS cf'leckHst, Cultural Resources, Is based upon a cultural
resources records search performed by a qualified archeologist at the South Coastal
Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012} for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which
included the Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase Ill project components.
The purpose of the record search and outreach to Native American contacts, described
in response to comment 8,.2, was to Identify those projects with the highest potential
for adversely affecting cultural re.sources. The analysis Identified known archaeological
resources throughout the CMWO service area; however, the project components
Included in the Phase Ill Recyded Water Project would be constructed entirely within
previously disturbed areas. Therefore, this recommendation has already been
Incorporated into the IS/MNO.
ATKINS CMWD Phase II Recycled Waler Projecl, IS/MNO {EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-20
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
SDCAS •ppreeiatc:s Ult oppo.nunlty to participate in the City's environmcnlal review process ror
lhi.,~j«t.
c:e: Atkins
SDCAS President
File
ATKINS
Sincerely,
~~ Enviroruncntal Review Committee,
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND IEIA 12-02)
Poge RTC-21
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
G-1.
G-2.
G-3.
Barbara Kennedy,
Senior Planner
Carlsbad Planning Departmem
163S Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Ms. Keru)Cdy:
COMMENTS
October 16, 2012
Subject Comments on MND
Pha.sc lll Recycled Water Project
These ~rnments on lhe draft MND for the Phosc IIJ Recycled Water Projccc me made oo behalf
of Preserve CaJavera. Preserve CaJavera is a grassroots organi:r..ation whose mission is to
preserve. protect and euhance the natural resources of co~rnl oortb San Diego Counly.
·mis project fs included as pvt of the broader program level [HR for the complete Recycled
Water, Sewer aod Waler M3Stcr Plans, This program level EIR for these three plans is still
being prooessc.d. This project assumes that the mi1.igation measures included in the as yet
unadopted program le"el EIR plus the related mitigation measures ineluded with this project
level MND wm address all of the po1cn1ial dirccc and indirect impacts associated with this
project. That is a pretty big wuiuption. II is also not 11cccptablc per CEQA to process this
project without having finalized lhe program Je,·el ETR of which ii is a part.
We see 1ha11he full program EfR is moving fon.vard expeditiously and expect 1he city is
assuming. 1ha1 it will be finalized before this current project level MND is cenified. Tilat of
course would addrC$S chis procedural issue. However the proper sequencing of lhese two
docwnems should be identified.
The following arc our .specific comments on this MNO :
Since the program level EJR of which this is a pan is not yet finalized, This MNOsbould
spcciCically state it will incorporate all mitigation measures tha1 arc included in the final
certified program level ElR. The current MND has included tl1e mitiga1ion
mcasurcs(MM) &om the DEIR (with minor modifications) but does no1 acknowledge that
these may be modified through lhc flllal approval process.
Tile figures do 1101 show where acoess will occur in the Shadowridge area or Vista or the
Ocean Hills Country Club area of Oceanside. Please clarify how it is intended that
5020 Nli.hth1w1t Way-Ott.111sldt. CA '205'
ww-.·.prutl"V1'C',AJa,;t.n,ors
G-2.
G-3.
COMMENTS RECEIVEO ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
IETTER G. PRESERVE CALAVERA
This comment expresses concerns regarding Incorporation of the 2012 Mastet Plans
EIR mitfgatfon measutes into the IS/MND because the 2012 Master Plan EIR has not
been certified. This EIR was subsequently ceftifled on November 6, 2012. Although
the EIR was not certified at the time of IS/MNO preparation, CEOA does not require
an EIR to be certified in order to be incorporated as a reference. As st.ated In Section
1S lSO{a) of the 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 of the IS/MNO and was provided on the City's
website. This document ls currently available for review at the City of Qlrl.sbad, 163S
Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomla 92008. Therefore, th-e 2012 Master Plans EIR is
an appropriate document for Incorporation by refetence. Additionally, although the
analysis in the IS/MND utilizes information provided in the 2012 Master Plans EIR, the
IS/MNO Is an Independent, project.specific document and does not rely on the 2012
Master Plans EIR forCEOA •rtertng• as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 1S1S2. The
biological resources mitigation measures In the 2012 Master Plans EIR were teviewed
for applk:abilitv to the Phas-e Ill project., tailored as appropriate to be applicable to the
proposed project, and determined through the projeci.specific analysis to be sufficient
to reduce Phase Ill project impacts to a les-s than significant level.
This comment recommends that the IS/MNO specifically state that the MNO will
include aU mitigation measures included in the Final 2012 Master Plans EIR. Refer to
response to comment G•l. The IS/MNO is an independent, project-specific document
and does not rety on the 2012 Mastet Plans EIR for tiering purposes. Mltfgatfon
measures Bi~lA through Bi~lF were determined to be applicable and sufficient to
reduce project-specific biological resource impacts to a less than significant level.
Changes to the 2012 Ma.ster Plans EIR mitigation would not affect the mitigation
meas.ures provided In the IS/MNO. Coples of the IS/MNO, 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.
This comment states that Is not clear how access wlll be provided to the Shadowridge
area of Vista or the Ocean HIiis 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 of the IS, existing pipelines extend from the proposed ES
4A project component to the Ocean Hills Golf Course and Shadowridge WRF. No
unidentified system modifications would be tequlred to connect these customers to
the recycled water system. As described in the Project Description/Environmental
Setting sectfon of the IS, no new pipeline.s would need to be installed as part of the
ES 4A project components. Expansion Area 4A would make use of an existing 12·1nch
diametel' pipeline in Melros.e Avenue that would connect to an existing pipeline in
Faraday Avenue. No new access would be r(?(lulred.
/\TKINS CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Wo1e< Projecls IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Poge RTC-22
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
G-4.
G·S.
COMMENTS
these systems will be connected and what additional system modific.ations and impacts
associated with d,ose modifications may occ;ur in the two e-ltics that will be affected by
Carlsbad's plan. h is understood that the City of Carlsbad will not pursue expansion into
these cities until agreements have been reached over such issues and COSI sharing, 1flc
need to modffy pipelines or other infrastructure within thtSe two eitie.s is n p0tcn1in.l
indirect impacl that has not been identified or m..itigatcd.
This MND has 001 described what actions have been takco to comply with permit
requirements related to wedand impacts. Specifically tl1is requires tl1a1 impacts arc first
avoided, then minimized and then mitigated. Puuing in language that says wedands
impacts are being avoided docs not dcmonstrale exactly what has been done to assure that
there has been full compliance with tbis required proocss.
Bio l•b needs to be modified to include that biologi.s1 will also assess the. opco space
areas for potential impacts on wildlife movemen1 corridors and will 1ake ac1iol1 lo
mi1igate any potential temporary construction or pennanent impacts. This should
include not just what is identified as conncai.ng linkages in the HMP, but actual on.the
ground movement corridors that have been modified over time because of cons1ruc1ion
and other barriers that have changed historic movement panems since U1e MHCP
corridors were mapped IS 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) aod such subsequent watershed
management plans that may be adopted prior to these Phase Ill projects moving forward.
RefCTCncc to the AH\VMP as a guidcllDcs document w~ included in the city's adopted
Drainage Master Plan and should also be incorporated in 1his project level and the
program level EIR as a guidelines document
Thank you for your oousidcni,ion of these oommcn.lS. We look forward to working with you 10
address these concerns.
Sinocrely,
Diane Nypard
Oo BchalforPrescrvc Calavera
Cc: Brynnd Duke CDFG,
' Janet Stuclcrath USFWS
G-4.
COMMENIS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MNO ANO RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the MNO has not described wflat actions would be taken to
comply with wetland permit requirements. As discussed in Section 4c) of the lnltfal
Study checklist, none of the proposed project components would result in direct
discharge~ dredge, or flll actfvirtes within jurisdictional resources, including wetlands.
D\Je to the location of the proposed project components within upland areas, none are
expected to result in inidvertent discharge, dredge, or flll acttvlties within jurisdlcttonal
resources.
Portions of ES l, ES 2, ES S, and ES 8 are located within upland areas that occur ln the
immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas potentially supporting wetlands. Potentially
significant Indirect Impacts were identified. Potential indirect impacts to federally
protected wetlands and other jurlsdlctional resources would be reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards and
regulations discussed in Section 9 and Appendlx A of the IS checklist; incorporation
of project design and construction features identfffed for Biological Resources and
Hydrology and Water Quality In Appendix A of the IS Checklist; and, Implementation of
Mitigation Measures Bio-18, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lf.
The proposed project components wovld not result in direct impacts to wetlands;
therefore, wetland permits would not be required and avoidance has already been
Incorporated Into the slttng and design of the proposed project. Mitfgatfon measure
Bio-18 requires pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist to verify existing
biologic.al resourus adjacent to project construction areas, including the presence or
absence of potential jurisdictional resourc~ and ~tlands. If potential jurisdictional
resource.s or other sensitive blologJcal resources are determlned to exist 0< have
the potential to exist adjacent to project construction areas, the City will further
Implement Mitfgation measure Bio-lC, which requires fencing to be installed to cfearfy
delineate the edge of the approved limlts of grading and cleadng, and the edge.s of
environmentalty sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved llmlts. In addition,
the City will restrict all construction stagjng areas through the implementation of
mitigation measure Bio-lE and, through the implementation of mitigation measure
Bio•lf, will retain a qualified biologist to perform contractor awareness training to
Inform oonstruction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/
or minimization requirements. Therefore, the IS/MNO adequately demonstrates how
impacts to sensitive areas would be avoided, as recommended by the commenter.
G•S. This comment states that the IS/MNO should include mitfgation to re<:iuire an
assessment of open space areas for potential Impacts to wildlife corrido,s during
construction. As discussed In Section 4d) of the ts checklist, all of the Phase Ill project
component sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW or
disturbed bare earth associated with access roads ot 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 repre~nt permanent
development barriers to wildlrfe movement. As it concerns the project components
ATKINS CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MNO IEIA 12-02) November 14, 2012
Poge RTC-23
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
ATKINS
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE DI IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
identified as having potential indirect Impacts on biological resources (I.e., ES 1, ES
2, ES S, ES 8 and ES 9}, installation and oper'ation activities associated with recycled
water plpelines within existing disturbed and developed areas would not be expected
to adversely affect wikllife movement and would not necessitate the addltfonal
measures suggested by the commenter. Therefore, the recommended modifications
to mit1gat1on measure Bio-18 do not apply to the propo$ed project.
G-6. This comment states that the 2012 Master Plans EIR does not Include appropriate
reference to the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan (AHWMP) and other
plans that may be adopted prior the Phase Ill projects moving forward. The comment
also states that the AHWMP was Incorporated Into the City's drainage master plan
and should be incorporated in the IS/MN0. The comment as It relates to the 2012
Master Plan EIR does not apply to the proposed project. The Agua Hedionda WMP1
Implementation actions are to be implemente,d 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 indMdual
developments, such as the Phase Ill project components. Therefore, the WMP is not
OO<lsldered an appllc.able local regulations and is not listed In the list of applkable
hydrology and water quality regulations in Section 9a) of the IS che-cklist. 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.
l Tetfil Tech. 2008. Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan. Produced for the City of Vista:.
August.
CMW0 Phase Ill Recycled Wale< Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
, Poge RTC-24
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
H-1.
H•2.
LEUCADIA
WAIT!WAHR
DISTRIC T
COMMENTS
I rAIJ(l<S IM
£NVIR(>l'IMll"ITAl
Pll.OT(CTION
OctOber 19. 2oi2
13atbala Kemedy. A55<>aale PlaMer
Pi.>nrlng OMslon
City of Cl:lflSbi:ld
1635 Faraday Avenue
C.rlsbAd. California 92006
Re: Proposed Mlt1gated Negptlvo Ooclar;ulon
Phaso Ill Rocyclod Water ProJoet EIAU,02)
Oenr Ms. Kennedy:
<f(l,l,N•U-t•!~Ul('w.1
1tit>tt 1, •• ,,,,,1; 1'0•1◄1••
, • ..,,., ,, ,,....,.,~ vy1 1n,o1•u1
~111,1111 ·111,11u•,_111,,,111•
1¥Ml•,,_'l,.•I>• 11-1-,rM
"'"""'' r ,.,,,oi:-, ,oft .11,..
.,.,,. I ••••f"II I'll ~~l f-.,J,l.o •
Tho Leucadia Was.tewalet Orttricl rLWO') oo,n~ed ii& 1'C\lfCW of I.he proposed M1Uga1od
Negative Oedarntlon {"MN01 ror tho Phaso m Aocydetl Wffl9f Prc;ect and has 18fiou1
con<:erns Wl1h ttIe documenl'& (tllk.lfe 10 accurataty d6scribc and disclose potentlat impacts or
lhe ExpansJon Segmet1I 8 or 1ho proposOd Protect f'E:S8'). Un1ike 01hot elements of the Project
that would e,pand recycled water t\-to aroas 1\0t currently SCNed, ES8 is deSignGtl 10 teptace an
existing public aervb.
ES8 lnc:todos • construction of approximalol:, 2,800 linoar reet of now pipefine across a private
tesoot gof COUl'SO and roglof\9I wale.way to suppty recycled wator to the south C:OUr$8 o4 the La
Cost.a Resort & Spa. The south murso cl.KrooUy recefves reeyded water frorn the Garner Wator
Reclamation Plant (9Gnfnar Plant") that Is owned and ope.roted by LVVO The erred of ES8
woulet be lO terminate the Gafner Plant as lho dedicaled source of reeyclod wc11« to 1h0 south
OOutSC ;;inct COU$0 abandonment of the facility, which hos no other custome, for rocyclod wo\er.
The MNO fds to address the phys:lcal rmpaccs associllted v~h ihuUi lQ down tho G~Jnor Plint
and now lrnp&cls tha1 W'tlutd mu1t from comtruction of dupHcalo replocement focll'i"l!e:s aaoss a
prNnto resort, 901' co.no and regional wa!mway, 11,stead, the MNO erroneousfy e,onclude, th"I
me decision to abandon the Gafner P13Tlt has o!roady been made and thal c.on1trucllon of uu:
now pipeline • not cause: soy enw"OM".enttlll impacts beC3U$e II \\111 OCCtJr within existing
roadways. As desaibe fn mo,e <Setnl belOw, neilhcr auumpOon is corm<:t
LWO submits lhal construction of o 1,ev, pip43lino to ctuplicato lh~ so,'Yice of an existing pubfic
facility il not a wtse expencMIJle of J)llblic funds. NonothelGSS. ii tho Cartsbad Municipal Waler
Dtstricl ("CMWO-) wl$hes lo pursuo this COUl'$8 o( action, it must first prepare and erW'itonmental
impact tcpot1 ("'EtR") tl\al fully discloses M d considers all envil'Ol'IO)entat Impacts related to
construction of new. redundant f-acilllles t111d lhO rO$Ulllng physieel .shvt•down of an exisUno
planL.
H•l ,
H•2.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
lmER H, lf UCADIA WASTEWATER DISTRICT
This comment states th.at the I.S/MNO does not address the potential abandonment
of the Gafner Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) or the construction of new pipeline
across the I.a Costa golf covrse property. The IS/MNO does not propose the physical
abandonment of the Gafner WRF. Page 1$-3 of the IS has been updated to make
this clarification. The Gafner WRF is a leuc-adia Wastewater District facility and the
future use o, abandonment of the Gafne, WR.F w1II be determined by the leucadla
Wastewater District. None of the Phase Ill project components would necessitate
demolition or any other physic-al change to the plant, as discussed in greater detail
in the City of Car1sbad Utilities Department's {Utilities Department) letter dated
November 6, 2012, which is included as Attachment A to this RTC. The Phase Ill project
does not commit the CMWO to constructing a new plpellne. As stated In Project
Description/Environmental Setting on page IS-8 of tile IS, CMWD could purchase or
lease an existing pipeline directly from Leucadia Wastewater District to serve the South
La Costa goff coui·se. Thl.s analysis assumes t~t a new pipeline will be built In order to
analyze the worst case scenario.
The IS/MNO does address the portion of ES 8 that would cross the la Costa golf course
property if a new pipeline would be consttucted. As stated in Project Description/
Environmental Setting on page IS-8 of the IS, ES 8 would be located within existing
roads and CMWO ROW, with the exception of the pipeline to the South l.a Costa golf
course, which may be placed outside of the 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
of the plpelrne would not cause any environ mental Impacts, Due to the proposed
pipeline's proximity to undeveloped areas, including wetlands, Section 4 of the LS
checklist concluded that implementation of ES 8 would result in potentially signi&.ant
impacts to biological resources and mitigation measures 8io-1A through 8io--1F would
be required.
This comment inttoduce.s the comments that are addressed In responses to comments
H-3 through H-14. Refer to the responses to these comments.
Portfons of this comment pertain to the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master Plan.
Please also refer Utilities Department letter responses to comments Sand 6.
ATKIN S CMWD PhOse DI Recycled Woler Projecls IS/MND (EIA 12-02} November 14, 2012
Page RTC-25
July 17, 2018 Item #4
H•l.
H-4.
H-5.
COMMENTS
Prolecl Pt@crlptlon
The PrOIOt,I do:scnptlon r0t the ES8 segment does no4 &OCUl'aletj describe tho ultklullo Qll'J>O$O of the
E.S8 Pro,eG( eftimonl, which is lo '•~• •nd cause the at,andonmcflt of tho Gafntw Plant IMl.600, the
MNO c,ronoousty Identifies th, Gafoo, Plant t'5 an ~INo 1,Cll'i1y (See. e,g... ~ 9).
F« tho rooofd, iho Ga:fnw Pbn1 l\lll$ been Ille only 11upply of recycled wa1or IO lhe SOtAh LA Costa gotr
COUtSe since the early 1960's.. Ovo to l'lcrcoUd fe9'1,1b101'Y requlrementa !hero w<I,. intortnluenl
pe110d& of time where recycled wmer was ooc ~rod 10 40Uth eoursc The Gafner rt.ll W;a$
upgraded In 1993 lo mc,et ,ww rtgUlatary slendatds to, fec.yded m to,, inelUffil'ltl a ono m11on galorl
per day filtration planl !net pnwidcs ;:i thltd ~;ag• of trc.:atment over and al:IO'IO Gainer's oriOfrl•I primoty
and se,contt-.y facffitin. LWD Im ,uppliod recycied wato, to soulh La Costa golf COV(ao oilhet by wtty
of a di«l<::t contrac:t between LWO and La Costa or via an agreement Mill ll10 City ol CQrlSbad U100 the
eatt, 1960'1. Ila operations are ongoing and LWO 1'1{1$ r,o plana to abandon ttw facility,
The MND Rt-lled Uuon fiftPDOOH§ swomanls And
A.§ruuut>lfana Contpl114;d 11, TM R(liiYdPd Wjlt[ Nttator PJao
The MNO"s etroncou, condl1:1ions rog:wdlng lho a(at1.11 of lhe Gafner PliaM ~ to bC!I ba$00 upon
tnaccurote statemanls and collciusJon& found rn !Lt ROCVQled W~ter Ma!tlct Plan ("Mastor Plan') !llnd It.&
EIR that weto recenlly cln:utatod ror pul>Uc review .rnd comn,e,,t, inc::IJCJr,g me foloiwlng staternenU;
(OU')d hl lhe Mi'l5'18r P$8r1 8l SOl.:l,on 2-7 .6, l)f). 2·20.21:
''CMWD Stiff hllVO statod lhat lho aging nature of th• G.ifno, WRP lwua led to 8 numbo, of
operatJonal lsauos:'' As lho Gonorol ,-i;in~ fot OY.1ner and operator o4 lhe Gart1tr Ptant. I can
ou~•re you that this M&lemont Is h:ofrocl. Tho Gafoor PIMt. has. \'oitf'l few ._m.1ptloos.
coolinuougfy •UJ'.)S)lied recyeled wttar 10 IIMl?f lls contract wi1h ~. Slnu OJ)E!Nllk>ns or I.he
upgradod facallliea ~ In 1903. ~ ar• no opo:raliooal lssueJ JeOPfltdWnQ lho vlabfli(',' of
Ille Aanl. and mos;t ltt1port.ar«ly, no pl.in by L 'ND to t8'Minate It& oporalion.
2. "Garner WRP hM r,-.quont st.,rt ups :.-net s1'1u1 downs that moat likely uacorb:.-to tho
o,:,er11Uom11 Issues u,at CMWO eurronlly P4Y:S to roo.olvo ... Ag.iiln. lhls ortof\C!OUS'fy anumin
thol tiler& are operational 11WM. Ope~tlon• at ~ Gafner Pfant do 500ft up and shut down
frequently due 10 lhe-500th CCMll'H'5 varying~ for recycled water. Howevor, fllls IS o
con<lltion iooc Ms ~ialoel fOf decodes and it has not inl.Offorod with tho v3lll"Ay of the Gafne,
Ptant. More b'$0(1.a,1t. lhO p(IQC CMWO 1~Ays fot tecychtd wator has ncvo, varied oned upon
starl u,ps ot al)l.C dO'l'MS ot tha Garner Plant
3. "(T)ho Gafnor WRP Is not oplimolly utlll:tOO !'llneo tho south golf coor•o doma11c.l Is la,
lo-s.s lhJn lll& ml,11tnum amount of recycicd watoT Ui.-.l CMWO la requlred to pu~haso
from LWWD. To furthet compound tho pro~•ni, tho Lil Co,t.a Resott & Spa n111tie,
mdUC4t'l r.cyc:IGd watcrr domand to lb, south goif course by btendlno Gafnor RWP emucnt
wttll pot~blo wator to decreaH TOS co11contmlions for l,rtgaUon of golf courao toos amd
pulling groon,,"' This nsun~lon Is fiawed becau:JO. unli r6cOl'ltlY, LWO was unde, lho
rmpreum that ft was supptylng lht f\111outh cowso demand for recycted wamr. "~ II loss lhain tl'le ~ or fHty eonlrac.t amounl Mth Carlaood. HoYIClo'er, tho second senleoce of thla
,1a.1sment rotlOcts tho f~ UXlt Cartsbik:I has chosen to a19W LQ Coet.t 10 ~111 115
cktmand 'Mlh potable water OHl)lte tho IOCI lhlll ihc City"s Recycled WMc( Ordil\arltt No. 43
~-IOO)'ckld watof to be U!led, II Is possible thal the fill tal(o ot pay aMOtlt'll oould l'la't'G
been ulllzod undor lhc contr.d if tlic, c1,1 h4'd followed 11s own 0tdw\:an~. whlieh "IOVkf ha.,.. sove<J • $1gn,licant amounl of expendillh.a ror \i'IUIOd rocyclO<I water.
H-3.
H-5.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the dese:11ption of ES 8 does not accurately describe the
purpose of the ES 8 element and incorrectly Identifies the Gafner Plant as an Inactive
facility. Figure 9 has been revised to identify the Gafner WRF as active. Refer to
response to comment 7 of the Utilities Department resPQnse letter. The project
does not propose the abandonment of the Gafner Plant. The Mw pipeline ES8 has
been sized for additional recyded water deliveries to numerous locations along Its
alignment, and to OMW0. However, the activity or inactivity of the Gafner Plant, ind
the CMWO use of the fa dllty, do not affect the analysls of the ES 8 project compooent.
No revisions to the IS/MNO are required in response to this comment.
The sectfon of the letter states that the conclusions found in the Program EIR and IS/
MNO are based on lnco,rec:t lnfo,mation rega,ding the status of the Gafne, Plant ar\d
include comments on Issues regarding the adequacy of the Recycled Water Master
Plan. Please refer to the Utilities Department response to comments 8 through 13.
Th1s section of the letter comments on the adequacy of the Recycled Water Maste,
Plan. It does not address the analysis of the environmental Impacts of the plans
contained in the IS/MNO. Please refer to responses to comments 1 through 13 In the
attached Utilities Department respanse to comments on the Master Plan.
ATKINS CMWD Phose 111 Recycled Woter Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
PogeRTC•26
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
H-5.
cont.
H-6.
H-7.
COMMENTS
In addi11on. the qu:Jllty Of tl't ,ecyc;itd water sUl>l)lled from Gnroer haa eonil$:!e~ mol
roqvi,on,ont. Of tho C011Vacl Y.ith Ca1lsbad sir1c:e tho achr.lnoad trealmefll racdlty began
opera~ in 1ag3. Fmhermore. there Is no evldet'IQe Int lt'.e te00rd to Indicate that recyeleO
w.itor ptOdoced by !he Cit;}"t roc.yeiod vntcf aystom wouid be any ~tnt wAh regtJrd lo lb
lDS conoenln.,Oons, ~nd as •~ tho df'ol.l'ngtanco W\ ~ pot.ible water is uled would not be
~ by tho Prcijed. Thetl!l'Of'8, LWO roilemtes lhal the C~y's SS'IUl'llpUoos are ltlcorrea
and ii was 0-1 Ille ~• dlscrttlOn ol the City lo not ,no:iitni:c.o tho 1.'h or pay QOm•IOf'I001 of tho
•sireon'lt)tll
4, "[T)hct La Costa Resort & S1>a In 2010 Indicated tf'lat they aro 1>11rinh,g on atgnlllc.ant
changes. wtik:h Include roduc1ng the amo.unt or Irrigated turl, and piping pot:a~e wMor lo
tho g,oeiu and IOG£. Thos,o t;hangtt will f\irl11er rodmo Uwri, irrigation ckN1H1.nd on tho
... cr<:lod water supply.'" Prffu~ lheso racl's ate ltoo_ they lndica!e a te<JuCod demand for
recyde,d water, lf.Wthet questionfr'lg ll'lo took' of OKpOndirtg ocklilioool e:ipi,a1 l'und9 lo p<Mfe
red1.m,n1 r-a<:11illot to provloe rocyclod water lo a W&tomor 'Nilh redocod domaM.
ll'8 Mtsler ~ •lso b'ldOON soYOnlll other eHoooou, a1111u11'11'.)tlons reg;udir\g tho Gainor Plant
us«S ot NStir,cation for II• conclnlon lhal ob.Jndonlng ,he Gainor Planl Is warranted, F«
example, lho Masler Plan as.sume<S l1lat m:i:iM11dng the G::irt'8f Pl.int vl<Qd ~ rel)I.-.Offllenl ot 27.000 foCtl of ~Y arl1JOnl nltt,,m plpo!irw from lho Encina Wa&1owat0r Au~y
("EWA1 Ptanl, Tl"is pipelne has algnllcaot rernahl,g useful life and, thetef0<0, repboe,'l,enl 19
not neoded. The Maiter PIM l~udoS o OMI to e,tp,ncl tho G,r11cr Plant ~h mtf1'1)tant
rn11ouon 111\d te'tW6e 0$:n<IW WNC11 are not neoes.sary to mee1 current w.-.lu wa1cr discharge
requirenK:ffs ror the Gat.rw PlanL As a fHtAI ot the r.oaso asaumplions at><we find others
induded In the M3ster Ptiln. ,t l'.)l'OYide• an inDatlkl C0$1 Of &e~ mllJion dollars to m~ucs.,,1:io
ua,o of too Gafoer Plant (See SectM 4.A,3)
Most lrr.,o,tal'IIJ)'. lhO ,..~~ Pl.in Clld not 000$1d0t the altOf'nil!iYe °' contn,ng UIO of the
oxillthg Gaftwn Planl faciiiHes under a renegolM1ec.1 ag,eement lo con!lnue a seMOO lttat has
been in ptaoe lor more ih:wl 50 ye:ira, an altemlltlve lhne WQl.dd t\Ot tOQUlre any m~ caolol
lnve1t.mo,ll. Fo, extn1')IO. LWO staf1 has been 1nuoclng wilh Cnbod stalf slrico 2007 wttll goal
of exlencfing lhc recydad water agreement r« "rvfoo, lo Che la Costa soulh course. Altl'IO!Jgh
the negoUaUons betW'Gen LWO ~ Cn~id ncwor rex:hn<I rl\M.ion, .ai11v condu11()nS In th•
MNO l~l rely upQ(l lht i)rico or rvcydecl wa!or as a ba$AS ror pu'5ulng abandonment of 1he
G.lfmY Plain! are not suppooable beceuse the oplion of modifying the price has nevor boen
......... l>jCMV,O.
Tho~ ~IIIA!'lpliofls e~ Om>f'e In 1he Master Pbn were c.wried fo1wa,d in&o il5 progran1
EIR and 1'1tnalefy Into lhe Projec:I MNO lh.>I indudos esa 'l'hcto U,Un'C)llont prevented
;icx:u,tto ccw,$klcralion of cnviRHi,ner.t.nl impacts bccauM llle)' ro&C.IU<I In an e.rronoous Projec1
description, oovlroMMM"UI ael(lng and b:ndine.
8io!lmlct1J :m(I W•Uand hDP.-H:!2
The MNO ra.ts to <Rsdose and dl9CUl!Sll slgrlllle:w\,I potontlal Imp~, to l)IQ4ogle81 ~~. pe,tleul1rty
U•e :.ssoclat.cdwil.h WOUOnd ha~..-IJ dutt to. .Jrf'TIOnQ Olher INrlg:;, lho lollowirlg'
1. Tho hlotb or Coo1plelfon Form lai!s lo ldanlAy two waie,ways wilNn two milt$ ~ 1.1'18 propolM!d Pl'otoct. Including Oatlquio, Ulgooo. lll'ld Enc:irllt.;p C*k. Stgmcnt ES8 is v.Uhln lWO l'M01 of
H-6.
H-7.
H•8.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE lll lS/MNO AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
The comment states that the errorn?ous assumptions in the Master Plan we,e carried
forwa,d to the 2012 Master Plans EIR and IS/MNO. 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 Plan..s EIR is based on accurate assumptions and therefore no revisions to
the IS/MND are warranted.
This comment introduces the comments that are addressed In re.sponses to comments
H•14 through H-17. Refer to the responses to these comments.
This comment state.s that Encinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek a,e mis.sing from the
Notice of Completion for tht! project and Figure 9 of the IS/MNO. 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 ot1 the
NOC. This form is intended to generally describe the project a,ea; it does not need to
provide a comprehensive list of foatures. Waterways th.at are not listed on the NOC are
not precluded from analY$is. 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 identffy £1'\cinitas Creek and San Marcos Creek.
ATKINS CMWO Phose Ill Recycled Wote, Projecls IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Poge RTC-27 November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
H-9.
H-10.
H-11.
H-12.
COMMENTS
thew w.ite,ways. In 9dddiofl. Fy,ie 8 does not klcnllfy San Mlwcos CroeJI. wNcn crosses Et
c.unino R.eal. and Encnilfls Ctee:k, v.hich etOS!.fMi La Costa AYenue. Attached p1ea$C: find a
Google earth hiago which $OONS lhHe ctoclt$, wf'lk:h d1eln into Oaliquitos lag004". Both Et
Camino Roal .ind l• Cost.a Aveooe CUff&Mly have bNdgO$ that OfOU the.au Q'Oeks.
2. The MNO lll'U)l)'11S of Rood plain is&Uet ls ~&If.tit, P32e IS-51 tc,en1Jres tho Meo1kla oarn 0$ ~ In close p«»limi~~ 10 ESB, .. ~., 1n r1PJality. this dam Is far from the projod site and posos
IU'fe lhmal. We haw all&ehcd a teoOnd Google tnago th.II id0!1ti(1N the location al the Mearlde
Dam In .-.111i1ion to the ES8 exparwkln $Ito for reference. Al tho same Urne. tho MNO Ifill to
ktenlify floodplalrdlfloodi'!-.g b8"J8S related lo ttlo S<luth oourso ol the Lll COSla golf oours&,
wNch is in ll'le U)O ye.;if fk>Odploln The MNO falls lo dRCIOSe how the new ES8 pipellne lo tho
aouth g,oll course would lmp;,d the 100 year lvoods,b!ri and SM Maroos Creek. Page: IS•50
lndicPH th.-l !1'1(1111 it no potootlal to Im~ tloodng ~ I.he plpo1ioos woijij bo
undefgrouncl, but fall& to m~lon that the plpel; woulCI be allached lo Iha bri<lgoa oo Ef Camno
Roal and l..a Costa Canyon lo somo f.1sNot\ :).Ad no analysis l'lH bCCn cooduclod rogilldil'lg lhe
po1enlt.al for thtff tw1cJOI) modifications to impa.c.1 flooding. Furthcnrioro, lhe(e 1s no lnr«mation
ptovided to describe how ES8 oons1ruet!on would OCQf' \Yilt,,1'1 the lloodplerr\ Of $:tfl Marcos
cu,,-., Wl'161"e the plpellno '6ave• El C#J'l\inO ~.
3, The MNO erroneoo&ty sl;;)IOS that the Prof,ecl w1U ()(:Cl.I' Wlthkl •J)tlblje rtght$ of WS'f and
easctnenti: HortKNer, lht es-s intluc:let a segmeni of~ on 1ho La Costa Rosort. v.hera
lhe cay dOO$ not curronlf)I h.1ve an eno•ncnt.. ond ~ lndcated abovt, t11lt aroa Is wllhln tho
floodplain of San MatGoG Crook. N, a result. lhG MNO lffiamptlon lhal lhOre w!lt bO no hlpec.a
bo<:11,;se -all Project ae(Mty wil be v..W\fl oxisling flgtts of way ilflO CY-1$emenla b not suppot~
by evldBnco.
4. The MND leib lo kfien1i(y polentl31 lmpadl to WC:tl.lndS nnd riparian h3:0•la1$ I.hat add rosu1I
ftOm tne •ns.taUa!ion of lho ES8 plpclh'lfl extenslon, The MNO indlea1e• that blH'IIChloRS methods
,-111 be us.OU 10 ln!tlll the San M~rwg Crock etOSlllig In the: swtl, La Co&!e golr oot.ne ror esa.
(ConslrUclM St:hl<Uo-i>nd Methods. p. IS-16.) Howe'i'ef, lh«o Is oo ~slon of Iha specific
mothOd that WOUid be ,"""4 to ero" tl'lfl San Marco6 CJ'Cd< #):)fig El Canh RA.'111, and EnclnlM
Creek jlQng i..-. Cosla Avooue. Al; lnclie11tod &bo\lo, I.hon, a,c btldget crossing those cree:11.1
aod 8ad1 of •hcso ,nas. l.8f'OCt areas o, saih m3irsh occupy the margins o4 OaUqu,tos Lagoon
and sf9nlflcant .strancta of lr8$h watar marsh ace p,CSeM iMW!!fe the San Marcot ;and Encinitas
Crock$ enter tho Lagoon. oodof lho btlclg'1& on E) Camino R~I and Enclnitais Crook and the
pot8'1tlal fOf " ~ to creale d•rect sign1r1¢1:11n1 1mprac«s du('ing 00n$truc:Son h:ia not beor'I
ode(1ua!cly asaesMtd. No miUglltlon fol tho&e potential Impacts hos been provided
Fur1h0trTl()l'O. lhe MNO lndlCat\?$ thal tho •Ja(;I( and~ lnmchlNS ,no,hOd would be used fOt
me uoss:ng ot tti. San M.3t~ Creek in ~a Soutl\ La Co$ta Goff Courso. m, It the not the
l'llott 00$l eifeclWe or a.pp,upriato metl)()d for cto&NnQ a creek ""lh I) ptOlS!JIC ~.
Generally, Hot1rt111Cal Obectlonol Dt111lng melhoda am U6ed. WlthOul :utdilionaa information,
ttiero 19 no evidence in the meotd to support .-~ that no po~ slgnfflcanl
«1wi1onmenlal lmJ)3d.a to biok)gical f1't(QOt"S :,r,d wetf.anclt would occur.
Archftoklav lmrn1clt
ThO MNO falls. to idan(ify lho potonlillt fOf the proposod lrenotik»S COf\$1Nd10f'I lo rnpctd ·~
resoxoos "itlwl Iha San Marcos Crock ftooclplialn Page 1S+37 indieatot that them Is l"IO po1(11'1(il)I ror
impacts lo archOOIOQlc:;i f4$0U'CCS, becauso alt coostrucl.ioo WOlAd oowr ~hln publle rlghll of Yr.I'/,
HowaYCr, ti portion or ESS lnCNClc,s c:cmtrvctlon within the SW' Mar00$ c,ook floodpla1n, ~ \he "jack
H-9.
H-10.
H-11.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that Maerkle Dam poses little threat to ES 8. This ls consistent
with the IS/MNO conclusion in Section 9j) that impacts related to inundation from
Maerkfe Dam would be less than significant. This comment also states that the IS falls
to disdose how the ES8 pipeline woukt be ·constructed within the Roodplaln of San
Marcos Creek, or impacts to the San Marcos Creek floodplain. The IS/MND states on
page IS..1? 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 woukf be Installed on the
sides of existing bridges: an existfng bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Cimino Real
and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Cours.e ovet an unnamed creek. The
Construction Schedule and Methods discussion on page IS.17 has been revised to
clarify the description of the creek crossings. The proposed pipes would be attached
to the side of the bridges and would not result in any new interference with potential
flood waters. Section 9h) of the IS/MND has been revised to clarify that the bridge
crossing would not impede or redirect flood flows. The revisions to the analysis made
in re.sponse to this comment do not identify a new significant effect or mitigation and
do not constitute a substantial revision.
This comment states that the IS/MND does oot disdose that a portfon of ES 8 would
occur within the La Costa Resort, which Is outside of the public rtght of way. The
description of ES 8 on page IS-8 under Rec:ytled Water Distribution System Expansion
states that ES 8 would Include an extension of pipelines across the South ta Costa Golf
Course, which may be placed outside of the public rtght•of,way. The description of the
Project Location on page 1S-1 referenced in this comment has been corrected to state
that a pol'tion of the ES 8 would be located within the South La Costil Golf Course. The
statement on page IS..1 Is not an impact statement aOO this revision does. not affect the
environmental analysis of ES 8.
This comment states that the MNO fails to identify potential impacts to wetland and
rlparian habitats because thete i.s oo dlseussion of the specific method that would
be used to Install the San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek ctossing of ES 8. The
comment also states. that no mitigation has been lndentified for potential Impacts.
As stated in the comment, the IS/MND de.scribes construction of the San Marcos
Cteek ctossing on page IS-17. A trenchles.s construction method would be used, and
the jack•and-bore method ls given as an example. The description on page IS..17 has
been updated to provide dlrectfonal drilling as another potend"al method that may be
used. Either method would avoid direct impacts to habitat within San Marcos Creek.
Installation of pipeline on the existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El Camino Real
would also avoid potential direct Impacts.
Encinitas Creek cuttently flows through a culvert undet 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.
/\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Wote< Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02) Novembe< 14. 20 12
Poge RTC-28
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
/\TKINS
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
In re.sponse to this comment, page IS--17 of the IS/MNO has been updated as follows to
specifically describe construction in the Encinitas Creek area:
Eqvlpment ossocioted with the cot1Struct1otJ of the Phose Ill project would
vtilize typical construction equipment Including dozers, rollers, dewotedt'lg
pumps, backhoes., loaders, delivery and haul true.ks. Pipeline Installation
project components would utilize open trenching or trenchless fdirectionql
d(lj/{Qq qr lock-011d-bore) methods. Open trench pipeline consttuction would
require trenches varying In width from 2 feet to 12 feet dependlt'1g on the
diameter of the pipe and its depth, Trenchles.s recycled water plpellne project
components include croS$ing Polomor Airport Rood along Avenldo Encinas (ES
2), trOS$ing the BNSF railroad tracks (ES 2), and cro$$ing San Marcos Creek
In the South Lo Casto golf course (ES 8). EodnfW Cccek rvrreoUv flows
through a cutwt under Lo Cqstq Avenue Pipelloe «mder La Cqstg AYfaue
{ES 81 would be instofledin the roadway riaht~of.wqy Jo the soil beneath the
coqd surface ood above tbr cuWrt 11#oa aa ooea tceorb The cutvea wpufd
net be directfv off«ted bv@nstrucn'.ao Two eoatPot qf ES 8 elPCllae woo Id
be Jnstolledoo the sides ofexisfinq bridges· on existing bridge ow:r San
Marcos Creek on El Camino Real and on acqss bridge on the South L.q Costa
GollC01ac over oo ,mawnrd crrtk Attadziaa the PiocUnrs to the btidaes
would not CCPulre orouad·dlswcblna coastroctfoa qctfyity The lnstolfatton
of plpeJines within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require o temporary
lane or roadway closure during constrvction activities. No grading would
~ tequired for the proposed CWRF expansion ~cause It would occur on the
existing bul/dlng pads.
As discussed in Section 4c) of the IS checklist, the IS/MND concurs with the comment
that ES 8 is located within the immediate vicinity of wetland and riparian habitat.
Therefore, the IS/MN0 determined that potential indirect Impacts to wetland and
riparian habitat would occur. As identified on pages IS-34 and IS-3S, mitfgatfon
measures 81o~18 through Bio-lf would be required to reduce Impacts to a less than
$ignificant level. Therefore, no revision$ to the IS/MN0 are required in response to thls
comment.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled W0l8' ProjeCIS IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-29
Novembe<l4.2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
H•12,
cont.
H,13,
H-14.
H-15.
COMMENTS
end bOfe· 000$llu<:l1on ~ San Mwcos C<tek I\IS the pofonlail to k\1,:iaa archeologleol ra30t.if'Q0s.
Tho MNO fails lo kfeo1ify and millQMe for an::hoologiC;:11 i~s.
Puhllc YUUtY fmwst(l
Tho MNO fnlts lo ackn~I.Odgo ltle lmpea cl cauAlQ lhO ;>b(lndonmenl of lhe G3fner AerA, A publlc
laciMy !hot is cu«enlly opers!lor.11. The, G3foor Pbnl is 1cpootocly desaibed M an tnedtve facility
cro.-illl'IQ OWJ em)MOI.IS blllieC thal the p,oP0$0d ob;,c'idonment la an omung condition. (Soo Fl(ruro& 2
and $1, pages IS-6 81\d lS-14, l"espe<:11\'ely) Tho realNY 1$ thal lh• p(OpOSOd Prefect '''°',-;I t0$ull In aigrM1ca,nt en•tlromlellta' effoets to pro"1de a utl:ty aeNiot th~ ts already being pcovide<I oy sn existing
foclM;y. The M.NO MS falied to 111\alyto lhO potential Impact ttmt WOf.lkS resull from thO JoH of tee:ycied
V#MC( C.'lpaclly •tho~ Plant Ill t01'0&d to be 3banctoned.
POf1191ft100 lmeas:st
Tho MNO competety fails 10 ~1, I.he potenl.lM lnlpll(ta, I.hat would ti. ,~ wilh demOfitlon
and replaCClf'll8l'il of 1ho Gafner Ptant W ES8 lon"'ie!' the ahl.AclOwn ol lhe f1tdll:y. OefnohUOn o,f 1110 Gaf~
Pl•lnl (.Odd be a polenlilll OUleome of It)() profett thal v.'OtAcf h!No lho potf('IIJal lG GflUW signliCM'I 81t
quaJlty, tr;iffit anct other enW'OM,ont.:11 tn,pacll, such ao hau:o,d waste auoeklttd 'M'lh ren,ov;.'1 or the
1no1Ario,ts, 11-.e MN'O oo~ety raa. to addreu lhO coo~cet. uf Ill vnlrate1al auempt lo cause the
abandonment and ctemoli!Jorl of tho Gofnor Plant
Conc.lus1°n
LWO appreciate& the CM'M)'& deslte 10 o,;pand ltt rocycled w11tc, Q1~cMy ~or the re.gion, •►toweww-,
LWD ~.cs IS,tiue with lhe CMWD'$ os.,umptlon 111.11 thO Gafnar Pfiarlt • l'IO longer viable Ol1CI
asiu nptlon "'* ll m8"tea $&-SO from 1)1'1 c:nvironmenral or l)\,tlk: pDIICy point ~ vfeW 10 replace one:
p.,i1c facility ¥1\ih Jnothef. Surely, In toct.,,fa on'ltf'Olllne,_ \lfhc~ ~resource&~ ,cwee, tOO'e 16
00 joAllf'k:3Uon ror a publle agency 10 expend public funds to duplicaio what Is alfe~ Wl eldS1enoo. FOi'
th~o rea&Otl$. L WO Nt&pedll.llly 5'D'nlts I.ti$: the best c»urso of adion will bt for lhc CM\¥0 to
o1bJndon {he ES& $0gment ef lhe Pro;e,ct. 01~. If the CMWO Wishes to i,1nuo ES8. Ill nlU&i ~t
ptep&f't M envirorrnenlal 1fflpac:t report that (0 (Ully ~CIOS&S pal!f1t1111 ~YC)aCl9, ali$0Cbled ..,.)lh
C()(lstr\JG1ion o, new. redonclam racii1ics ~nd lhO deatruct•on o, extstill9 pvbk I~. 00 lcJentmes
~ti,ma(lves that could """°'° llgn!licant tnpacu .ind (iii) ldentififi mil!g~tlOn nMJ;asurcs .i,i;: oould i-edUoO
~npacis 10 a leVOI below $ignir.c.nce.
cc: FIie:
H-12.
H-13.
H•14,
H•15.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
This comment states that the IS/MND falls to disclose the potentfal for trenchless
construction to impact archaeological resources within the San Marcos Creek
floodplain. Section Sb) of the IS checklist has been revised to clarify that construction
would take place within existfng roadways or the developed South La Costa Golf
Course. Similar to the existfng roadways, resourc,es within tlte 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 oot the natural creek alignment. The entire South
La Costa Golf Course wa.s 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 constttute a
substantial revision.
Thl.s comment states that the IS/MND does not address the potential abandonment of
the Gafner Water Redamation Plant and does not consider operation of the plant as an
existing condition. The Phase Ill project does not propose to abandon the Gafner WRF.
None of the Pltase Ill project components would necessitate demolition or any other
physical change to the plant. It Is undear what environmental effects would be caused
by Implementation of the project that are not disclosed of In the IS/MNO, as stated
by the commenter. This IS/MNO addresses the potential environment.al impacts that
would occur as a res.ult providing the utilities proposed in the Phase Ill project. Figures
2 and 9 have been corrected; however, the operation or in.activity of the Gafner plant
does not affect the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project.
This comment states that the IS/MND falls to discuss the potential Impacts of
demolltion and replacement of the Gafner WRF. The Phase Ill project doe.snot
propose the demolition or replacement of the Gafner WRF. None of the Phase Ill
projtet components would necessitate demolitfon or any ether physical change to the
plant. Thel'efore, no change to the IS/MND is required in response to this comment.
This oomment concludes the letter and summarizes the comments that are specifically
addressed in responses to ccmment H-1 through H-14. Refer to the response to these
comments.
ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled woter Pr0jecl$ IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Pog,, RTC-30
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
/\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Waler PrOjecls IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-31
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MND AND RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS
ATKINS CMWD Pho,e I I Recycled Water Projecls IS/MND fEIA 12-02)
PageRTC-32
COMMENIS RECEIVED ON !HE PHASE I11IS/MN0 ANO RESPONSES
RESPONSES
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ATTACHMENT A
City of Carlsbad Utilities Department Letter
dated November 8, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
4 -~'> (I T V or
~ CARLSBAD
Utilities Departn1ent 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 Ill 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 Ill Recycled Water Project, EIA 12-02. The City's Planning
Department is responding with a separate letter to your comments regarding the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Measures. Your comments are restated below followed by our response.
Comment 1, Page No. 1, First Paragraph: "Unlike other elements of the Project that would expand recycled
water into areas not currently served, ES8 is designed t o replace an existing public service."
1.
Response: Pipeline Segment ES8 will expand recycled water into areas that are currently not being
provided recycled water service from CMWO's recycled water distribution system. The pipeline ES8 will
be designed to extend the CMWD distribution system to the following irrigation use site locations:
• La Costa South Golf Course
• La Costa Hotel and Resort, which currently has a large grass landscaped entry, and other
landscaped areas surrounding the buildings and grounds that would be converted from potable
water to recycled water.
• Numerous irrigation meters located along El Camino Real, including street median and parkway
areas.
• Various homeowner associations which have maintenance responsibilities for community based
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
OMWO's irrigation customers. OMWD staff has met with the City staff to review the Pipeline ES8
alignment and construction schedule. We are aware that OMWD has begun de.sign 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 PhOse Ill Recy<:I«! wow Projects IS/MND (EIA 12-02)
Page RTC-33
Novembet 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
2.
3.
4.
5.
Nov.8, 2012
Page2
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE HI IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Comment 2, Page No. 1, Second Paragraph: "The effect of ES8 would be to terminate the Gainer Plant as the
dedicated source of recycled water to the south golf course and cause abandonment of the facility, whi ch has
no other customer for recycled water."
Response: The effect of CMWD's ES8 pipeline within El camino Real is not to terminate the Gainer Plant.
CMWO 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 LWO does have options for sale of recycled water to other
agencies, and we have noted that State and Federal funding is being pursued by LWD for that purpose. In
addition, at meetings of the North County Recycled Water Group, LWD has made several comments that
they are in discussions with other agencies to deliver recycled water south of CMWD.
The ES8 pipeline has been sized to receive recycled water from the Gainer Plant as well, provided LWD
upgrades their existing effluent pump station at the Gainer Plant to provide the required flow rates and
water pressure for CMWO's use within its distribution pipeline system, and a new agreement for
purchase of recycled water is successfully negotiated between CMWD and LWD.
Comment 3, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "The MND fails to address the physical impacts associated with
shutting down the Gafner Plant and new impacts that would result from construction of duplicate
replacement facilities across a private resort, golf course and regional waterway,"
Response: Shutting down the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase Ill
Recycled Water Project; and therefore, no discussion Is required In the MND. The pipeline ES8 is also not
a duplicate supply, refer to response to comment 1. The MND does provide detail, (Secti on 4 Biological
Resources), on Impacts due to the construction of a new pipeline (ES8).
Comment 4, Page 1, Second Paragraph: "Instead, the MND erroneously concludes that the decision to
abandon the Gainer 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.N
Response: The project description in the MNO is now modified to delete references to abandoning the
Gainer Plant and provide a more detail description of the alignment for Pipeline Segment ES8 (refer to
Response to Comment 2). With regard to Pipeline ES8, the MND does provide detail, (Section 4 Biological
Resources), of impacts due to the construction a new pipeline.
Comment S, Page 1, Third Paragraph: "LWWD submits that construction of a new pipeline to duplicate the
services of an existing public facility Is not a wise expenditure of public funds."
Response: Constructing Pipeline ES8 will not duplicate services provided to CMWD's irrigation customers,
refer to response to Comment 1. Pipeline ESB is a wise investment of public funds as it will lower the
expenditure of public funds related to purchasing recycled water from the Gainer Plant. The effective
recycled water rate to CMWD from the Gainer Plant supply is approximately S2,DOO/AF, which Is
significantly higher than the cost from other sources. Discussions with LWO indicate a potential
willingness to change the terms to reduce this unit cost, but the stated cost to date is still significantly
higher than CMWD's other sources. In addition, the existing Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility (CWRF)
in combination with Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) has sufficient capacity that can be
utilized to supply recycled water to the la Costa South Golf Course as well as the other use sites located
along the alignment of Pipeline ES8 at substantially lower cost and the recycled water has sufficient
pressure to be used in the golf course irrigation system without additional pumping by the golf course
operations. An economic analysis was performed to confirm that CMWD will be able to offset the
ATKINS CMWD Phase a1 Recycied Water Projects IS/MND !EIA 12-02)
PogeRIC-34
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
s.
cont.
6.
7.
8.
Nov. 8, 2012
Page3
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MNO ANO RESPONSES
construction cost for Pipeline Segment ESS within a few years based on the cost savings from utilizing the
other sources of recycled water available to CMWD, and the increased recycled water demand from
CMWD customer use sites along the alignment of pipeline ESB will further assist in lowering cost to
CMWO's system through economy of scale.
Comment 6, Page 1, Third Paragraph: "if the CMWD wishes to pursue this course of action, it must first
prepare and environmental impact report ("EIR") that fully discloses and considers all environmental impacts
related to construction of new, redundant facilities and the resulting physical shut-down of an existing plant.•
Response: CMWO 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 ESB as well as a
draft Mitigated Negative ll<!daration for the Phase Ill recycled water project. Abandoning the existing
Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the Phase Ill Project or the 2012 Recycled Water Master
Plan. The project description in the MND is modified to make this dear, refer to response to Comment 2.
Figure 9 in the MND Is modified to show that the Gainer Plant is an existing facility.
Pipeline ES8 is not a redundant facility as noted in response to Comment 1. This pipeline could also
connect directly to the existing pipeline from the Gainer Plant to supply recycled water to CMWD's
distribution pipeline system.
Comment 7, Page No. 2 Project Description first paragraph: "The Project description of the ES8 segment does
not describe the ultimate purpose of the ES8 Project element# which is to replace and cause abandonment of
the Gainer Plant. lnst~ad, the MND erroneously Identifies the Gafner Plant as an inactive facility (See, e.g.,
Figure 9.)."
Response: Abandoning the existing Gafner Water Reclamation Plant is not part of the proposed Phase Ill
Recycled Water Project. The ultimate purpose of expanding 1he recycled water distribution system is to
reduce CMWD's demand on the imported water s.upply, and provide a more reliable water supply to
irrigation customers through implementation of cost effective improvements. The project description in
the MNO has been modified to make this clear, refer to response to Comment 2.
The purpose of pipeline ES8 is not to replace and cause abandonment for the Gafner Plant. The new
pipeline ES8 has been sized for additional recyded water deliveries to numerous user site locations along
its alignment, and to OMWO. 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 Gainer Plant.
Figure 9 in the MNO Is now modified to show that the Gainer Plant Is an existing facility.
Comment 8, Page 2, "CMWD staff has stated that the aging nature of the Gafner WRP has led to number of
operational issue.s. Gainer 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 recyded water
used at the South Golf Course. There have been periods of time when a large increase in the potable
water use and decreased recyded 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 Plyfer of Water Operations, dated September 3, 2008, which states "operational issues
(adequate chlorine concentration time and 1urbidity) prevented the delivery of recycled water: These
operational issues persisted from March 14th through April 1st"." Our intent was nof to highlight actual
operational or water quality issues of the Gainer Plant which can be obtained from the Regional Water
ATKINS CMWO Phole II Recycled WOle< Projects IS/MNO fEIA 12-02)
Page RTC-3.S
Novembef 14, '2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
8.
cont.
9.
10.
Nov.8,2012
Page4
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE GI IS/MNO ANO RESPONSES
Quality Control Board records, but rather, to indicate that the historic delivery to the la COsta South Golf
Course has encountered operational issues in the actual quantity and timely delivery of recycled water to
CMWO's customer as stated in a letter prepared by lWO.
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. lWO has
indicated that starting the Gafner Plant up and shutting it down with the short notice provided by the
South Golf Course operator does create operational issues. By implementing Pipeline ESB, the south golf
course flows would be accommodated by CMWO's other two supply sources and storage; and therefore,
would not require start up or shut down or treatment facilities based on the South Golf Course
fluctuating irrigation demands.
CMWO records indicate that lWO payments or credits to CMWO 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 ernuent w ith 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 c.reating
stress on the grass. The TOS concentration from the Reeve-led Water creates additional stress with
unsatisfactory conditions for use on the tees and greens. la Costa Operations staff recently upgrading its
golf course irrigation system on the North Golf Course so it can irrigate the tees and greens with potable
water separately from the fairways and other landscaped areas. l a 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 e.xtent1 but allows site owners
to choose specific u.se areas on their sites meeting all State requirements for appropriate use.
CMWD's Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility does have the ability to lower TDS through the use of its
reverse osmosis process as well. Carlsbad utilizes micro filtration with Reverse Osmosis which the Gafner
Plant does not currently incorporate.
Comment 10, Page 2: "The La.Costa Resort & Spa in 2010 indicated that they are planning on significant
changes, which include reducing the amount of irrigated turf, and piping potable water to the greens and
tees. These changes will further reduce their irrigation demand on the recycled water supply.•
Response: The changes being made by the la Costa Resort operations will actually result in a more
efficient use of available recycled water supplies, which is directly related to removing the amount of turf
out of irrigation. There is no incentive by CMWD to have its customers use more recycled water than
they require for their landscaping. We applaud any efficiency improvements made by our customers, and
will not discourage that practice. Efficiency improvements have been made by other CMWD customers
and are resulting in operational savings for CMWD with its recycled water distribution system.
/\TKINS CMWO Phole OI Recycled woter PrOjects IS/MND IEIA 12-02)
PogeRTC-36
November 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
11.
12.
Nov.8,2012
Page5
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE III IS/MND AND RESPONSES
Comment 11, Page 2: "The Master Plan assumed that max,mmng the Gainer Plant would require
replacement of 27,000 feet of secondary affluent pipeline from the Gainer 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 Gainer Plant.•
Response: In accordance with LWD's Asset Management Plan, dated June 11, 2008 prepared by Dexter
Wilson Engineering, Inc., replacement funding was clearty noted for the secondary effluent pump station
and force main utilized in supplying secondary treated water to the Gainer 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 ttie Gafner Plant is expanded and used to serve new CMWO 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 Gainer Plant. Water quality could therefore be a potential issue
when utilizing the Gainer Plant supply source within the CMWD recyded 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 Gainer 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 SO 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 Ill
Recycled Water Project demand is greater than existing available supplies, major capital investments by
CMWO 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 CMWO.
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 LWO 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 CMWO presently.
ATKINS CMWD Phase II Recycled Woter Projects IS/MND fEIA 12-02)
Poge RTC-37
November 1 ◄. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
13.
Nov.8, 2012
Page6
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 111 IS/MNO ANO RESPONSES
Comment 13, Page 2, "Any conclusions in the MNO that rely upon the price of recycled water as a basis for
pursuing abandonment of the Gainer Plant are not supportable because the option of modifying the price
has never been pursued by CMWO."
Response: The MNO is an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the Phase Ill Recycled Water Project as
recommended in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. CMWO has met several times with LWO to discuss
the option of modifying the price and terms of recycled water sales to CMWO. 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 Gainer
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 utiliie the Gainer Plant which do not accommodate the current method of supplying recycled
water by LWD. This has been discussed with LWO 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
ATKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled Woter Projects IS/MNO (EIA 12-02)
Poge RIC.JS
Novembe< 14. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Initial Study
Case Number:
Project Tille:
lead Agency:
Contact Person:
Project location:
EIA 12-02
Phase 111 Recycled Water Project
City of carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Barbara Kennedy (760) 602-4626
The Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Phase Ill project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in the County of San
Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) service area (see Figure 1). A small portion
of the project (Expansion Segment 4A) is located in the City of Vista and a small portion (Expansion Segment 5) is
located in the City of Oceanside. The project will occur within public rights-of-way (ROW) and easements. with the
exception of a portion of ES 8 that would extend across la Costa Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual
components are shown in Figure 2. The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be Installed at
the existing CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, C.rlsbad, 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 S, along the Burlington Northern and
S.,nta 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 Segments (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. Expan.sion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El C.mino 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 Maerl<le Reservoir along Palmer
Way and Impala Drive.
Project Applicant/Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
1635 Faraday Avenue
carlsbad, C.lifomia 92008
General Plan Designation:
Public ROW -Not Applicable
Public Utilities (U)
Zoning:
Public ROW -Not Applicable
Public Utility (P-U}
Brief Description of Project:
Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and
Phase II), Phase 111, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase Ill, would expand CMWO's recycled water system to
the north area of C.rlsbad and begin initial expansion Into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase Ill project
components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase Ill project would expand the treatment
capacity (from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the C.rlsbad Water Recycling Facility by installing additional filtration
units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or
construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape
I J\TKINS CMWO PhQ,e Ill RecycJed Woter Projects IS/MNO
Poge IS-I
SepteFR801• 19, 201~
Nqvemb§< I_. 2Q12
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 Selling:
See Table 1. The Phase Ill project would be constructed within the CWRF, within existing a•d plaARed roadway
ROW. the South t.,, 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 HFCs Hydronuorocarbons
afy acre feet per year HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
BMP Best Management Practice HMP Habitat Management Plan
BNSF Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway HPMR Habitat Preservation and Management
CARB California Air Resources Board Requirements
COF California Department of Forestry and MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Fire Protection MG million gallon
COFG California Department of Fish and Game MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
COP Coastal Development Permit N10 Nitrous Oxide
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
CFC Chlorofluorocarbon NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
CH, Methane NO, Nitrogen oxides
C!Ps Capital Improvement Projects OMWO Olivenhain Municipal Water District
CMP Congestion Management Program PFCs Perfluorocarbons
CMWO Carlsbad Municipal Water District PM10 Respirable particulate matter
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database PMu Fine particulate matter
CNPS California Native Plant Society RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
co Carbon Monoxide ROW right{s)-of-way
co, Carbon Dioxide RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan
co,e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
CWRF CaMsbad Water Recycling Facility SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
OEH County of San Diego Department of SDAB San Diego Air Basin
Environmental Health SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
DOC Department of Conservation SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SIP State Implementation Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
ES E,panslon Segment USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility VIO Vista Irrigation District
FHWA Federal Highway Administration voe Volatile organic compounds
vwo Vallecitos Water District
I /\TKINS CMWD Pha,e Ill Recycled Waler Projects 1$/MND
PogelS•2
Sei;,te,-.~•• 19, 201 a
Novemt>ec 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAl SETIING
Project Description/Environmental Setting
Project Description
CMWD provides potable water and recycled water within a portion of the Oty 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 Oty of Dlrlsbad. The mayor and City Council are CMWD's governing board. The project
study area is the service area of CMWO as well as some of the surrounding areas of three neighboring agencies.
These neighboring agencies are the City of Oceanside, Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), and Vista
Irrigation District (VID).
The CMWD has been providing recycled water to the city since 1991. The CMWD 2012 RWMP guides the continued
development of the CMWD recycled water system. Currently, CMWD's existing recycled water system extends to all
parts of the CMWD service area except the upper portion of the northwest quadrant and the portion of the
Vallecitos Water District (VWD) service area within the Dlrlsbad city limits. The proposed project Is the
implementation of the Dlpital 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 OP projects addressed in this document will collectively be referred to as the
project.
Implementation of the 201.2 RWMP is divided into three phases: Existing (Phase I and Phase II), Phase Ill, and Build-
out. Phases I and II were previously implemented as part of a previous RWMP program. It is anticipated that an
additional 3,135 acre feet per year (afy), or 2.8 million gallons per day, of recycled water would be required to serve
demand at the completion of Phase Ill (Year 2020). The anticipated demand from inside the CMWD service area in
1,985 afy, and 1,150 afy would be needed by the neighboring agencies. The project would implement the Phase Ill
facility improvements to meet the additional demand.
Phase Ill includes the most feasible alignments for expansion of the recycled water system. This would expand
CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad, as well as fill in existing service area.s, and begin Initial
expansion into the neighboring agencies through wholesale service to VID for the 5hadowridge 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 Il l project would be completed
between 2014 and 2020. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Phase Ill project
consists of the following facility improvements.
Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Expansion
The CWRF is owned by CMWD; 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 alJandening discontinuing
CMWD use of the existing Gainer Water Reclamation Plant. The Phase Ill expansion of the CWRF would increase
capacity by installing additional filtration units and a chlorine contact basin within the existing facility, as shown on
Figure 3. The expansion would increase capacity by an additional 4.0 mgd, for a total capacity of 8.0 mgd, to meet
Phase 111 demand and replace the 0.6 mgd of discontinued capacity from the Gainer Water Reclamation Plant. The
CWRF already has approximately 14.4 mgd of pumping capacity and no additional pumps would be installed as part
of the project.
Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion
The Phase Ill project would indude the installation of new pipelines, conversion of existing potable water facilities to
recyded water use, and retrofitting landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water and provide supply to
proposed land development projects. The recycled water expansion segments that would require new pipeline are
described below. A total of be 96,600 linear feet of pipeline is proposed for the Phase Ill expansion segments.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MNO
Page 15-3
Sei;temlaer 19, 101 a
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
I
ORANGd-------
COUNTY
Pacific Ocean
S.0, COUNTY
$,
SOLANAr
BEACH
DEL MAR
[2.22] CMWO Service Boundary
D City of Carlsbad
Source: ESRI, 2010; SanGIS, 2011
0
ATKINS
4
MIies
8 N
A
S.O. COUNTY
.....
Welltford
S.D.COUNlY
( EIC•pll•n
R'1UNOJr ,
Loveland
Ro«tw>Jr
S.D.COUNTY
;;::
~ f Otar Reservoir
S.O.COUNTY
u.s.A.
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
CMW0 PHASE HI AECY'CLEO WATER PROJECTS IS/MN'D
July 17, 2018 Item #4 Page 90 of 223
---0
Pacific Ocean
""'f ""'' \
ATKINS 0 '2,600 5.000 .... N A
4A
PNM -~~ Wat. c .. ._.,. _.,,
0 -
0 --• ~lob.i.t,,g~
fl~INW-.PIIN!II-
-ElMrQfl~W.., ...... -e.o-ion~-1A
~S.,......-2
~~-~
~S..-•6
~s.r--c-1 ~~-· ~~-· ~s.o,i,«11•11
flK)IC'i.d w-, f KillllM • B • ...
I ... • -
-·-Pf-.n,~Sllllion --, .. ·---LWNO~SUtiofl -----W11,•8oot
CM!ibld~U.. ... _°'""' C CM.VO 8oln;I-.,
PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECT FACILITY LOCATIONS
FIGURE 2
July 17, 2018 Item #4
I ATKINS
PROJECT DESC111PTION/ENVIRONMENTAl SETTING
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Waler Prajecls IS/MND
PagelH
S8$18Mtler 1$, aQ12
Nwembec 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
...
Source: Carole> 2012
ATKINS
0 100
Feet
.., -. -
.,,
Phase Ill Chlorine Contact Basin
Phase Ill Granular Media Filtration Unit
•:..,;; . '
~ -. .. ',
~ ~ #, •
CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY EXPANSION
FIGURE 3
CM'hO PKASE II A:ECYCLEOWATER PROJECTS ISIMNO
July 17, 2018 Item #4
PROJECI DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The future recycled water customers that would be added to the recyded water system as part of Phase Ill are
located adjacent to existing facilities and would require conversion or retrofitting of existing facilities. These
customers would not require any new pipeline to connect to the recycled water system.
Expansion Segment 1 consists of a total of 9,400 feet of 4~inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a system demand of
99 afy. As shown in Figure 4, ES 1 is located in the center of CMWD's service area in Zone 550 and consists of
connecting customers in the business park surrounding Palomar Airport Road. ES 1 would be located within existing
roads and CMWD ROW.
Expansion Segment 2 consists of a total of 17,500 feet of 8-inch to 18-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate
system demand of 782 afy. This segment in Zone 384 would extend the recycled water system north from CWRF
along Avenida Encinas to the new power plant and across the lagoon, as shown in Figure 5.
Expansion Segment 4A would evaluate the potential of serving demands within the VIO and provide wholesale
Service to VIO 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 Metrose 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 300afy, 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 cam I no Real to serve the second pha.se of the Robertson Ranch development, several existing homeowners
associations, and existing landscape irrigation. This segment also indudes 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 woutd 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 Quany Creek development and considered in the environmental analysis for the Quarry Creek project.
Therefore, the pressure regulator is not considered part of the proposed Phase Ill project. As shown In Figure 8, the
anticipated alignment for ES 7 is along Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and
carlsbad Village Drive.
Expansion Segment 8 consists of 9,900 feet of 6-lnch 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 OMWO and existing landscape irrigation at la Costa Resort and Spa. ES 8 would
be located within existing roads and CMWD ROW, with the exception of the pipeline to the South la Costa golf
course, which may be placed outside of the existing public ROW.
Expansion Segment 9 consists of 4,800 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with an ultimate system demand of
91 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 318, expanding the recycled water system south to the San Pacifico
Homeowners Association and various existing landscape irrigation and potential development areas, as shown in
Figure 10. A portion of this alignment extends Zone 318 south along Avenida Encinas to the Poinsettia Village
shopping center and the Lake Shore Garden mobile home park.
Expansion Segment 18 consists of 1,900 feet of 6-inch to 8-inch diameter pipeline with a Phase Ill system demand of
25 afy. This segment would be a part of Zone 550, connecting several existing commercial irrigation demands north
of Faraday Avenue to the existing recycled water distribution system. ES 18 would be located within existing roads in
CMWD ROW, as shown in Figure 11.
I ATKI NS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Woter Projecls JS/MND
Poge 15-6
Sep,embe, 1$. 2Qi2
November 11 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
C116 •
1A
C054
co
• C
C039 C
C092
CC>
082
Vl"OARO E
C04 •
8" C091 u.s PALMAS
Source: Carolo 2012
./\TKINS 0 600
Feet
1,200 N
A
COSS, .1'3
0084
12•
Expansion Segment 1A
Avg water usage = 99 afy
No of meters = 56
No of customers= 17
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
e Expansloo Project IA
• Adjacent to Exisling
-Existing Recyded Water Pipelines
-Expansion Segment• 1A
Corisbad City Limits
EXPANSION SEGMENT 1A
FIGURE 4
CMWO PHASE II R£<:YClED WATER PROJECTS IS/MNO
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Sourco: carotlO 2012
0 ATKINS
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon
800 1,600 N
Feet A
!,
C144
Expansion Segment 2
Avg water usage; 782 afy
No of meters= 18
No of customers= 13
Phase Ill Rocyclod Wate, Customer&
(Customet JD)
• Expansioo Project 2
e Adjacent to Existing
Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
Developer
Expansion Segment • 2
Pump Station
WRF
Water Body
CMsbad City Limits
CMWD Boondary
EXPANSION SEGMENT 2
FIGURE 5
CMWO PHASE. Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS ISIMNO
July 17, 2018 Item #4
..........
I
I .,,.
"'
I I .......
"1~"Wr.$S ~ > , ..
a·
8"
8"
Source: Carollo 2012
ATKINS
0 900
Feet
1,800 N
A
Vista .,.....,.
1-
.-«>"""' -
• °"'-"• f i §
'· "
0 .,..,., §
~'TON~
_,.,
.,,,,,.
Expansion Segment 4A
Avg waler uuge = 300 afy
No of meter stations = 1
No of interconnections= 2
No of customers = 1
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
• Expansion Proj~ 4a
e Adjaoent to Existing
._ O Other Expansion Projecis
✓-0 -Existing Sewer Outfall • Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
£ Inactive WRF
• Interconnection
■ Flow Control and Meter Station
Cartsllad City Limits
... ~i..u.o I VtSta 1-/ c::J CMWOBoundory
afy me Feet Per Year
EXPANSION SEGMENT 4A
FIGURE 6
CM'M> PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS 1$/W,10
July 17, 2018 Item #4
l '
Souroe: Carclo 2012
ATKINS
0 1,500
Feet
I , I/,._
3,000 N
A
....
Calavera PS
..... ,---
Expansion Segment 5
Avg waler usage= 454 afy
No of meters = 21
No of customers;; 14
Phase Ill Recycled Wator Customers
(Customer ID)
e Expansion Projecl 5
0 Olhor Phase Ill Expansion Projects
-Existing Re<:yOl&d Wator Pipe.llnos
--• Developer
-Expansion Segment • s
Other Phase Ill Pipelines
Water Body
Carlsbad City Limits
Oceanside
c::J CMWO Boundary
afy Acre Feet Per Year
EXPANSION SEGMENT 5
FIGURE 7
Ca.Mt> PHASE Ill RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS l&'MND
July 17, 2018 Item #4
--
\
AVALON --
BERKELEY
Source: Carollo 2012
ATKINS
SEABU~Yo g
\
C\\~Sl:II~
' I
'~~ :ii>'\< \\ ~
io
WINTHROP f ~ )
~
0 570 1,140
Feet
N
A
\
Expansion Segment 7
Avg water usage= 98 afy
No of meters= 11
-o No of customers = 3 '%
00 '-Phase Ill Recycled Water Cu5tomors
Ml l;,> i, C' (Customer ID) ""0 . ,, 0
:z t • Expansion Project 7
"-. "-WQ ;.-/-\~G '&,, 0 01her Phase Ill Expansion Projects
--.--: 00.s->1." -z-. IAtvc O '< -Existing Recycled Water Pipelines "1.o C'.-<. • ::, ~~,r af -··· Developer
~• -Expansion Segment • 7
<r Other Phase Ill PipeRnes
Corisbad City Lirrlts
Oceanside
CMWD Boundary
afy Acre Feet Pet Yea,
EXPANSION SEGMENT 7
FIGURE 8
~ PHASE Ill RECVOLEO WATER PROJECTS 1~0
July 17, 2018 Item #4
BLu1: 0 ~_c1-110 ~ rn
PJJ,_IAF\,~ J _________ A_LG_A ___ ; ___ __
COTTONWOOO
8
• C004
12"
Souroe: Carollo 2012
ATKINS
0 550
Feet
1,100 N
A
Expansion Segment 8
Avg water usage = 420 afy
No of services= 2
No of interconnections = 1
No of meter stations c 1
No of customers = 2
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
{Customer ID)
• Expansion Project 8
• Phase III LWND to CMWD D•ma
-Existing Recycled Wate, Plpel;nes
-Expansk>n Segme<it • 8
.A Leucadia WRF
• LWND Pump Station e lnteroonnection
■ Mete,ing Station
Water Body
Cartsbad City Limits
Encinitas
CMWD Boundary
EXPANSION SEGMENT 8
FIGURE 9
CMWO PK.6.SE Ill RECYCLEO WATER PROJECTS &SJMHO
July 17, 2018 Item #4
~tr % --,,,~ •~Orr
0;.,,,,.
"' 255 Zone PRS
~
~-="' "' l -. -~--' \ ~ ,.,-
' ' I \ '. ' ' ,.
t', ~
'
Os~ <~
'•~,
'1 .
C072
C177 ~<
~~"'--.. ~o\ / ~
,£ 1::•RO-I
SANLUIS I \
auov
A J :, ~#
I '
BEACOHIIAY
f. ~ ~ ,,...., \~· ,
"""""' y
Source: Carollo 2012
ATKINS 0 600
Feet
1,200 N
A
A8EUA ~
~ \f,. ~ ,~..,._~
12" \ 10" f2"
Expansion Segment 9
Avg water usage= 91 afy
No of meters = 6
No of customers = 7
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customor ID)
• •
Expansion Project 9
Adjacent to Existing
Existing Recycied Water Pipelines
Developer
Expan$ion Segment • 9
Pressure Regulating StaUon
Water Body
Carlsbad City Limits
Encinitas
CMWO Bounda<y
EXPANSION SEGMENT 9
FIGURE 10
CM'A'D PHASE Jn RECYClEO WATER PROJECTS JS/MND
July 17, 2018 Item #4
'·. 18
6" 6" ... ,.,,.
""""' 0: • .. • C044
8"
~~Q • ~&:. ~ C084C0S
i k: \ o ,:, .co8s .
C086\ i., . . . Ocoo1 • •
Souroo:: caro11o 2012
0 ATKINS 750 1,500
Feet
I
12"
N
A
\
8"
Expan$lon Segment 18
Avg water usage= 25 afy
No of meters~ 12
No of customers = 1
Phase Ill Recycled Water Customers
(Customer ID)
• ExpaMlon Proje<I 18
,,-L-4J-...:..:;~~...J---l8"~ O Other Phase Ill Expansion Project
• Adjace.nt to Existing
-Existing Recycled Water Pipelines
_,.!!:_-J'-"'~'""'tii"!p<J4-.J_j -ExpanSion Segment• 18 12·
llc-.2'!,l!lllli!.•~ -· • O<her Phase Ill Pipelines
• Pump Station
12" Ca~sbad c;1y L;mits
EXPANSION SEGMENT 18
FIGURE 11
CMWO PHASE II RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS ISIMNO
July 17, 2018 Item #4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Storage
Additional recycled water storage is proposed to be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site. This includes either
constructing a new 1.5 million gallon (MG) steel tank adjacent to the existing two tanks or relocating an existing 1.5
MG steel tank to the site. The location of the proposed tank site is shown in Figure 12. Construction would include
an at-grade concrete ring wall to support the 1.5 MG tank. The site is already graded with an existing paved access
road.
Construction Schedule and Methods
The Phase Ill project would be completed between 2014 and 2020. Based on the 2012 RWMP, construction of the
CWRF expansion, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would begin as early as 2014. ES 1 and ES 2 would begin
construction as early as 2015. ES 4A would also be completed in 2015, but would not require any heavy construction
activities. The CWRF expansion and Twin D tank construction or relocation would each take approximately 18
months to complete. Pipelines would be installed at a rate of 80 fe.et to 100 feet per day; therefore, pipeline project
components would take between two months (ES 9) and 29 months (ES 5) to complete.
Equipment associated with the construction of the Phase Ill project would utilize typical construction equipment
including dozers, rollers1 dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. Pipeline installation project
components would utilize open trenching or trenchless (directional drilling or jack·and·bore) methods. Open trench
pipeline construction would require trenches varying in width from 2 feet to 12 feet depending on the diameter of
the pipe and its depth. Trenchless recycled water pipeline project components include crossing Palomar Airport
Road along Avenida Encinas (ES 2), crossing the BNSF railroad tracks (ES 2), and crossing San Marcos Creek in the
South La Costa golf course (ES 8). Encinitas Creek currently Aows through a culvert under la Costa Avenue. Pipeline
under La Costa Avenue (ES 8) would be instaUed in the roadway right-of-way in the soil beneath the road surface and
above the cutvert using an open trench. The culvert would not be directly affected by construction. Two portions of
ES s pipeline would be fns:talled on the sides of existing bridges: an existing bridge over San Marcos Creek on El
C3min9 Real and an access bridge on the South La Costa Golf Course over an unnamed creek. Attaching the
pipelines to the bridges would not require ground-disturbing construction activity. The installation of pipelines
within roadways may, as deemed necessary, require a temporary lane or roadway closure during construction
activities. No grading would be required for the proposed CWRF expansion because it would occur on the existing
building pads.
Permits Required
The approval of the Phase Ill project requires the affirmative vote of the CMWD Board of Directors. However,
implementation of the indhridual facilities that comprise the proposed project may require that the CMWO obtain
approval, permits, licenses, certifications or other entitlements from various federal, state, and local agencies, as
shown in Table 1 in Appendix A.
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The environmental setting and land uses surrounding each of the project components are provided in Table 1.
Regulatory Compliance
Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, including a variety of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to various
environmental topics. Applicable regulations are listed in Appendix A.
Project Design and Construction Measures
The CMW0 has Incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design
that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The project design features and
construction measures are provided in Appendix A.
I ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Woler Projects IS/MND
Poge IS-17
Sopto,,.t,or 19. 2012
NQ\f8mber 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ATKINS
0 75
Feet
N
A
PROPOSED STORAGE TANK LOCATION
FIGURE 12
CMWO PHASE I I RECYCLEO WATER PROJECTS ISIMND
July 17, 2018 Item #4
PROJECT OESCRtPnON/ENVIR◊NMENlAL SETTING
Table 1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Project
Component Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
Carlsbad Water The expansion would be located within the existing CWRF facility. The proposed chlorine contact basin and
Recycling granular media filtration equipment would be located within a new concrete structure. The two concrete
facility tanks that contain the tteat.ment system would be surrounded by other CWRF facilities to the south, east, and
Expansion west, and the EWPCF to the north. Existing vegetation within the CWRF facility site surrounding the structures
consists of non.native and/or ornamental species.
Expansion Pipelines would be located within the following existing roadways: Corte del Noga!, Corte de Abeto, Yarrow
Segment 1 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 llght Industrial development.
Pipelines would be located within the 8NSf railroad ROW and the following existing roadways: Cannon Road,
Exp.ans.ion Avenida Encinas, Palomar Airport Road, and Oceanview Drive. Ulnd uses atong the rail corridor include the
Segm•nt 2 new power plant. Land uses along Avenida Encinas include power plant infrastructure, hotels, office and
industrial parks, open space, the railroad track, and the CWRF. Land uses along Palomar Airport Road include
open space and a hotel. Land uses along Oceanview Drive Include mobile home residences.
E)Q)ansion The e>dstlng pipeline is located within South Melrose Drive In the city of Vista. Lan.d uses along this roadway
Segment4A Include open space, lndustrlal parks, commercial land use, singte-famity residences, and the Shadowridge
Country Club and golf cours.e.
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, Ketty Drive, and Park Drive. Land uses along Vista
Way include hotels and visitor serving commercial uses, El camlno Country aub and gotf c-0urse, and medical
offices. Land uses aloog Haymar Orive Include open space, a driving range, and commercial land us.e.s. Land
uses along El camlno Real Include commercial and entertainment land uses, multUamity and single-family
Expan.slon residences, medical offices, and open space. land uses along Marron Road include commercial land use, multi-
Segment 5 family residences, Westfield Pia.ta mall, and open .space. Land uses along Carlsbad Village Drive include multi·
family and singfe---family residences. Pointe Avenue and Palisades Drive are located in a single family residential
llt!ighborhood north of Tamarack Avenue. Land uses along Tamarack Avenue indude open space and single•
family residences. High Ridge Drive and Telescope Avenue are located in a single-family re.sidential
development south of Tamarac:k Avenue, and Regent Road, Southampton Road, Olancery Court, Chelsea
Court, Salisbury Court, Dorchester Place, c.arnaby Court, and Buckingham lane are located In a slngle-famlty
residential neighborhood east of El camino Real. Land uses along Kelly Orive Include singJe-famlty residences,
open space, Kelly Elementary School, and Laguna Riviera Oty Park. Land uses along Park Drive include cpen
space and Laguna Riviera City Park.
Expansion Pipeline would be installed within the following existing roadways within a single-family residential
Segment 7 neighborhood: Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenu~ Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village
Drive.
Portions of ES 8 would be installed Within the following existing roadways: la Costa Avenue and El Camino
Expansion Real. Land uses along these roadways Include open space, commercial development, single-family and multi-
Segment 8 famlty ,estdential development, and the la Cost.a Resort and golf course. The remaining Portion of the
expansion segment would traverse La Costa golf course property from El Camino Real to the existing golf
cours.e lake.
Pipeline would be inst11led in several existing roadways: Avenlda Encinas, Ponto Drive, and Navigator Cirde.
E.x;pansion land uses along Avenida Encinas include the lake Shore Garden mobile home residential neighborhood and
Segment 9 the Poinsettia VIHage commercial development. Open space Is located on either side of Ponto Drive.
Navi.gator Circle is k>cated in a single-famlty residential neighborhood.
Expansion Plpeflne would be installed in the existing Palmer Way and Impala Drive roadway ROW. These roadways are
Segment 18 located in an existing business parl< including office and light industrial uses.
The new or relocated steel tank would be k>cated on a currently graded site that contains two existing steel
l.SMGSteel tanks for recycled water storage. The tank would l>e connected to the existing pipeline at the sjte. Existing
Tank vegetation adjacent to the steel tank site consists of non-native and/or ornamental species. The storage tank
site Is surrounded by slngle-famlly residential development.
I .I\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Wale, Projects IS/MNO
Page IS-19
Septem~er IQ, 2012
Noyembe( )4, 20)2
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Environmental Initial Study
Environmental Factors Pote ntially 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
Biological Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use/Planning
Population/Housing
Transportation/Traffic
Dete rmination
D Agriculture/Forestry Resources
0 CUiturai Resources IZJ Hazards & Hazardous Materials D Mineral Resources
D Public Services
D Utilities/Service Systems
OAirQuality
D Geology/Soils
0 Hydrology/Water Quality
0Noise
0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 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.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental
Impact Report is required.
0 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.
0 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.
City Planner Signature
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse III Re<:yeled Wote, Project, IS/MND
PagelS-20
Soplornllor 1 ~-2012
Novemt>m 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAL STUDY
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Chapter 3, Article S, 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 rety on a previousty 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.
■ NPotentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"' applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures
has reduced an effect from "'Potentially Significant Impact" to a Nless Than Significant Impact.'"
■ The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
■ "'Potentially Significant Impact"' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
■ Based on an "'EIA•lnitial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document
have been incorporated into this project~ then no additional environmental document is required.
■ When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the
significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
■ A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the Qty 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 dearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures
are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated• may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
■ An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an
earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that
reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the
significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do
not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-lnitial Study analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of
a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Wafer Projecfs IS/MND
Page 1s-21
SepieM~Bf 19, 2012
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAt 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 le<:ated adjacent to existing
recycled water facilities would be connected to the recyded water system. No physical environmental changes
woufd 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 Ca~sbad Sewer
Master Plan and CMWD Water and Recycled Water Master Plans {Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006) (2012
Master Plans EIR), which was released for public review in July 2012. The 2012 Master Plans EIR addresses the
potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plan CIP Projects, including the CWRF expansion and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9,
and 18. This initial Study also uses the information included in the previous Initial Study and Environmental Checklist
prepared for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase II Project in December, 1999, which included
construction of the CWRF, Each of these prior certified environmental documents is herein incorporated by
reference. This EIA contains information summarized from these prior documents to facilitate the reader's review of
this document where appropriate. All referenced documents are available for review at the City of Car1sbad, 1635
Faraday Avenue, Ca~sbad, California, 92008.
The proposed ES 4A consists of using an existing pipeline to provide recycled water service to the Shadowridge golf
course. No new pipeline would be installed as part of this project component and no other construction activities
would be required. The 2012 Master Plans EIR assumed that 700 feet of pipeline would be installed as part of
ES 4A, but determined that installation would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts that
would require mitigation. ES 4A as proposed would not result in any physical environmental effects because no
construction would be required; therefore, consistent with the determination of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, ES 4A
would not result in any physical environmental impacts and is not included in the EIA below. The potential
environmental impacts of the CWRF expansion and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 18 are addressed in the
following EIA.
Pot~tblly ~flllln less Than
Slcnibnt Slcniflcant Wl1h Significant
Impact Mitiption lmp,ct No lrnplti
1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ ~ □ b} Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings □ □ ~ □ within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or □ □ ~ □ quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which □ □ ~ □ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Explanation:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed expansion segments are below-ground installations, and the CWRF
expansion consists of interior improvements to an existing facility. Following constroction, 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 trOm public view. However1 temporary visual impacts would occur from construction of the expansion
segments due to unsightly trenching and stockpiling in public roadways, and presence of heavy construction
equipment. Disturbance of ground cover, excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Wole< Projecls IS/MND
Poge IS-22
io(ltanc-,8ar 19, 201 a
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 CMWO has committed to the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential
effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase Ill project during construction activities, induding
removal of construction debris1 limiting disturbance of the existing setting, and restoring disturbed areas following
construction. Therefore, visual impacts would be minimized during construction activities and disturbed areas would
be re-vegetated or repaved to ensure that all disturbed areas of the construction site return to pre..existing visual
character conditions after completion of construction. Temporary construction impacts would be less than
signifkant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
les.5 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.
Pottf\tiaty less Than Leu Than
Sip1ifica1:1t SiP1ifkMt With S.C,,ificant
l~ct MitlC•~ l~ct No -.ipact
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 Deportment of Canservotion as on optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, ore significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory afforest 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 Fannland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the california Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
□
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled W0le< ProjeclS IS/MND
PagelS-23
□ □
Sep1em~•• 19,2012
NPYember l4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing :zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220{g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 4526)?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Explanation:
Potentla.lly
Signlflont
lmpic:t
□
□
□
□
lfflihll'I Less Than
SlgnlflontWktl "''""""' Mitigation ,.,.. .. Noltnl)<lc:t
□ □ ~
□ □
□ □
□ □
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the california Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. There are only a limited number of areas within Carlsbad that include important farmlands as defined by
the California Department of Conservation. Carlsbad consists mainly of Urban and Built-Up land along the western,
southern1 and northwestern portions of the city, with large areas of "Other Land"' interspersed throughout the
eastern and central portions {Dudek 2003). "Other land" consists of land not included in any other mapping
category. Common examples include low density rural developments and brush or sensitive habitat areas not
suitable for agriculture. One small Williamson Act contract area is located within Carlsbad, east of Interstate 5 at
Palomar Airport Road (DOC 2009) and it not located in the vicinity of any project component. No agricultural uses
occur within the areas of the VID or Oceanside Water District adjacent to the proposed recycled water infrastructure
alignments in these jurisdictions {City of Vista 2D11 and DOC 2008). The CWRF expansion and new storage tank
consist of improvements to existing facilities and would not re.suit 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 e.>Cisting zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. See response to question 2a). No Impact to agricultural land would occur.
c) Conflict with e>Clst:Jng zonln.g 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 VIC 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.
I J\TKINS CMWD Pho,e Ill Recycled Woler Projects IS/MND
Poge IS--24
$eptem9er 19:, 2012
NQyttmb¢t: 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentially lHS Than
Slc,i~t Si&nifictnt W-rtfl
Impact Mftic111iotl
3. Air Quality
lfflThan
~ftc:tm: ·~"' NolmPkt
Where available, the significance criteria estobllshed by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct Implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an exjsting or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non·
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions, which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e} Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Explanation:
□
□
□
□
□
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
□
□
□
□
□
~ □
□
□
□
□
Less than significant. The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SCAB). 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 SDAPCO and thus the applicable
air quality plan to the Phase Ill project is the 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) {SDAPCO 2009). This plan was
prepared by the SOAPCD for the california Air Resources Board (CARB) as part of the State Implementation Plan
(SIP), to demonstrate how the SOAB 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 CAR8 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 (SAN DAG), 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, SANOAG 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 capadties of the
recycled water CIP projects are based on the projected growth that would occur in the areas served by the CMWO.
The Phase Ill project would implement CIP projects identified in the 2012 RWMP to meet future demand. These
projects would not generate any additional population and no unplanned growth would be served by the projects.
The proposed facilities are community service facilities, providing the infrastructure necessary to support planned
population growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in population growth that would exceed the
population projections accounted for in the RAQS and SIP. Implementation of the Phase Ill 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 SOAPCD 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
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Woler Projecls IS/MND
Poge IS-25
S9Plomeor II'. 2013
Ngv9mbe( 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 induded installation of 124,414
feet of pipeline (Including approximately 63,4110 linear feet for ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18), pump and lift station
removals and replacements~ removal and relocation of a storage tank at the Twin D site, access road installations,
and the CWRF expansion project.
The worst•case analysis assumed that all projects would be constructed simultaneously and completed in seven
months. It was assumed that 890 linear feet of pipeline would be installed per day for all three Master Plan CIP
Programs. The 2012 Master Plans EIR included the worst-case construction scenario for the Phase Ill project that ES
5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, placement of a new tank at the Twin D site, and the CWRF expansion would all be under
construction in 2014. Construction of the Phase Ill RWMP pipeline projects were assumed to be installed at a rate of
80 feet to 100 feet per day. In reality, the project components would not all be constructed in 2014. The Phase Ill
project would be installed at a slower pace and over a longer period of time compared to the 2012 Master Plans EIR
assumptions, and would therefore result in reduced maximum daily emissions compared to the EIR assumptions.
The maximum daily emissions associated with the worst~case construction scenario are provided in Table 2. As
shown in Table 2, implementation of the Sewer, Water, and Recycled Master Plans simultaneously, including the
worst•case construction scenario for the Phase Ill project, would result in less than significant emissions of criteria
air pollutants during construction of the proposed OP projects. The Phase Ill project would also Implement the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Appendix A to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant
emissions during construction of Phase Ill project, Including covering or applying soil stabilizer to unpaved surfaced,
restoring disturbed areas when construction is complete, using alternative sources of power when feasible, installing
air filters on construction engines, implementing a traffic control plan, locating staging areas away from residences,
and limiting truck idling. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant air pollutant emissions during
construction.
Table 2 Worst-Case Daily Emissions Associated with Construction
Maximum Daity Emissions., pounds per day
Emission Source voe NO, co so, PM10411 PMuCJJ
Total Worst-Case Cons.trottion Scenario Emiss.ions 17 94 63 0 66 18
Significance Threshold 7S 2SO S50 250 100 55
Significant Impact? No No No No No No
Includes hauling of imported and exported trench material c,,
"' Architectural coasting emissions assume that all arciiitectural coatings would be k>w.VOC coatings. Based on estimated
Interior and exterior surface area for each new reseivolr, pump station, and 11ft station, Worker vehicle ttips were
estimated by URBEMIS 2007.
P> Estimates of particulate emissions take into account application of soil stabilizers to inactive areas during grading in
mandato,y compliance with SOAPCO Rule SS.
VOC = Volatile 0<ganic compounds; NO.= Nitrogen oxides; CO= carbon monoxide; SO.= Sulfur Oxides; PM Jo• Respirable
particulate matter; PM15 i: Fine particulate matter
Soorce: URBEMIS 2007.
Following construction, the new pipelines would be passive and the CWRF expansion would not require any
equipment that would generate the criteria air pollutants, listed in Table 2. The underground pipelines would not
require regular maintenance. No additional maintenance trips would be required to the CWRF as a result of the
proposed expansion. Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips and not
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND
Page 1S-26
$epteM8er 19, 20n
November U 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #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, PM1a,, 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 voes (ozone
precursor), NOx(ozone precursor), PM1o, and PM2,5currently exist. The greatest concern involving criteria air
pollutants is whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net inCfease of PM10 and PM1.s, or exceed
screening level thresholds of ozone precursors (VOCs and NO,J. As discussed in Section 3 b), the project would not
generate operational air pollutant emissions; therefore, only the potential cumulative impacts associated with
construction-related air pollutant emissions are evaluated below.
The County of San Diego's Guidelines for Determining Significance provide guidance for assessing the impact of
cumulative emissions of criteria pollutants. According to these guidelines, a project would result in a cumulative
impact if the proposed project, alone or in combination with the construction of another cumulative project, would
exceed the significance thresholds listed in Table 2 during construction.
A localized pollutant concentration analysis is appropriate to the determination of the cumulative impacts of
construction emissions because pollutant emissions would disperse or settle out following construction and would
not contribute to long•term concentrations of emissions in the San Diego Basin. The geographic scope of the
cumulative analysis for the proposed project is area served by the CMWD, including the CMWD seivice area and
portions of the VID and Oceanside services areas where recycled water service would be extended. As shown in
Table 2, the worst-case simultaneous construction of the CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plans, including the worst·case construction of the Phase Ill project, would not exceed the
significance thresholds. The 2012 Master Plans EIR concluded that construction would not result in significant
cumulative impact because cumulative construction projects would not take place at the same time or in the same
location, and relatively short construction periods are anticipated for CIP projects. The proposed project
construction would be consistent with the construction assumptions in the 2012 Master Plans EIR. Therefore,
consistent with the conclusion of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in
a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact during construction.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than significant. None of the departments within the CMWD are listed within the 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots"
Program Report for Sen Diego County as an organization posing possible health risks to San Diego County with
regards to TACs. The proposed Phase Ill facilities are similar to existing pipelines, storage tanks, and CWRF
facilities and would not result in a new source of TACs. As discussed under question 3b), the proposed Phase Ill
project would not result in a substantial net increase in vehicle trips, and would not contribute to severe traffic
congestion issues with the potential to create carbon monoxide "hotspots" (defined as areas where high
concentrations of carbon monoxide result from idling vehides). Additionally, construction of the Phase Ill project
would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations, including diesel exhaust from construction equipment.
Therefore, while sensitive receptors {e.g., medical facilities and residences) exist along some Phase 111 pipelines,
construction activity would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would
be less than significant.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant. CARB's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook includes a list of the most common sources of
odor complaints received by local air districts. Typical sources of odor complaints include facilities such as sewage
I ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recyelec! woter Proje<:1! IS/MND
Poge IS-27
Sopton:,Ger 19:. 2012
Novemb&t u 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
treatment plants, landfills, solid waste recyding facilities, petroleum refineries, and livestock operations.
Construction activities are not a typical source of nuisance odors, although construction could result in minor
amounts of odorous compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust or evaporation of volatile
compounds within paint or other coatings. Additionally, construction equipment associated with the Phase Ill
project would be operating at various locations throughout the project area and would not take place all at once.
Odorous hydrocarbons emissions would dissipate beyond the emission sources and would onty temporarily affect
receptors in the i mmediate 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 CAR B'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 secondal)' treated wastewater, rather than raw sewage, and the proposed expansion would not result in
substantial odor impacts compared to existing conditions. Chemicals proposed for use in the treatment process
would be in enclosed containers and would not be vented to the atmosphere. Therefore, operation of the project
would not result in a significant odor impact.
lffl Th811 I.ti$ Th81'1 Po,enU..Uy
Slcnitbnt
Impact
Sip!ltbnt With Slcnftbint
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 spedal 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 califomia
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, vemal 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?
D
D
D
D
D
D
I ATKINS CMWD Phose I I Recycled Wole< Projects IS/MND
Poge IS-28
Mitlp,1on Impact
D
D
D
D D
D D
D D
D
D
D
teplem8er 19, 2Gl3
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Explanation:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and WIidiife 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 exjsting disturbed and developed land, no site-specific biological surveys
were required to be conducted in support of the biological resources analysis. A summarized list of the primary
resources consulted for the preparation of the analysis is provided below under the Biological Resource Database
and literature Review heading. The biological resources analysis included a thorough review of literature and
geospatial data pertaining to biological resources, Including the C3lifornia Natural Diversity Database, C31ifornia
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 Ill project components have been specificalty 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 Cteek 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 gplf course, including the existing creek
alignment, The oortioo of the pipeline that would cross Encinitas Creek wourg be attached to an existing bridge and
wgµld 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 re.sources. Therefore, construction of these components could result in indirect
impacts to special·status species, as addressed further below.
Soecipl•Stotus PfgntSoecies. In totalr 54 special~status plant species have been reported at locations in the vicinity of
the Phase Ill project sites (Appendix 8). None of the S4 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 site.s given the high level of disturbance and overall unsuitability of
the existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore~ no impacts are anticipated to occur to any
special-status plant species as a result of the project.
SReciOl•Stotus Wildlife Species. In total, 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported at locations in the
vicinity of the project sites {Appendix 8). None of the 63 special-status wildlife species have been reported as
occupying habitat specifically located within the project sites themselves. Similar to that found for special-status
plant species, the project sites lack suitable habitat for special-status wildlife spedes 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. The.se factors include the presence of existing developments; exposure
to regular disturbances, including lighting, noise, vehicle, and pedestrian activity; regional isolation and lack of direct
connectivity or reasonable proximity to larger, better quality habitat; and, overall poor quality or lack of resources
with respect to providing nesting, foraging, dispersal, refuge or other habitat elements important to species life
history requirements.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase ~I Recycled Wale< Projecls IS/MND
Page IS-29
$eptsmBsr 19. 2Gl2
Novamb&r J4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Most of the areas surrounding the Phase Ill sites are regularly used by vehicles and pedestrians, which present
ongoing adverse direct and indirect effects associated with regular roadway use, encroachment into undeveloped
areas, nighttime lighting, and high noise levels. These ongoing effects degrade the existing habitat and deter special-
status wildlife species from using the area. In addition, most of the sites are constrained In all directions by existing
developments, thereby reducing the likelihood for special-status wildlife species to disperse or migrate over the sites
and immediate vicinity. The relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in proximity to some of the
sites has been reduced to small, fragmented, and low-quality stands, which are disconnected and isolated from
habitat in the local and regional area. Most of these off•site stands do not offer the space and resources required by
most of the special~status wildlife species.
Given these factors, special•status wildlife species would not be expected to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of
most of the project sites. However, several of the project components contain small segments that occur
immediately adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could support special-status wildlife
species. These components include ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8 and ES 9. Although no direct impacts to special-status
wildlife species would be expected, potential indirect impacts could occur to special-status wildlife species during
project construction. The Phase Ill project components with segments that ocCtJr adjacent to undeveloped areas are
depicted within Figure 13 and listed below within Table 3, along with a discussion of the potential indirect impact.
Table 3
Project
Component
Expansion
Segment 1
Expansion
Segment 2
Expansion
Segment S
Expansion
Segments
Expansion
Segment 9
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Components with Potential to Result in Significant Indirect Impacts
(Only) to Special Status Species
Rationale for Det ermination
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 wikllrfe species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands.
All construction activities W01.1ld be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, Of habltatwou1d be
directly disturbed. Potential Indirect noise-related Impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project
construction would coincide with the breeding season.
Expansion Segment 2 would require construction of rttycled 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 facilrty will occur adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status wildlife
species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All construction actMties wovld be restricted to e.xisting
disWrbed and developed areas, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly di$turbed. Potential indirect
noise-related Impacts could occur to special-status bird species If project construction would coincide with the
breeding season.
Expansion Segment S would require construction of recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of
th.is project component that would be installed along Haymar Drive, Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive,
Pontiac Orive1 Park Drive, and Palmer Way are adjacent to undeveloped areas that could support special-status
wildlife spe(ies, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands, as shown in Figure 13. All construction activities
would be restricted to existing developed roads, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directly disturbed.
Potential indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides
with the breeding season.
Expansion Segment 8 would require construction of a recycled water pipeline within developed areas. Portions of
this project component near El Camino Real and the la Costa Resort and Spa are adjacent to undeveloped areas
th.at could suppcrt special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. All ronstruction
activities would be restricted to existing developed roads and the developed South la Costa Golf Course.
Trench!ti~ S:Qn§lru!i!ig!'J WQ:Mld t!e IU:esl tO ,roH ~an MarSiOl !;ree!s within t!Je gszlf 'Q!.!rS;1 ~ t{o trees, shrubs, or
habitat would be direct:ty disturbed. Potential Indirect noise-related impacts could occur to special-status bird
species If project construct.ion coincides with the breeding ff:ason.
Expansion Segment 9 would require consttuctlon 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 activitiecs would be restricted to existing
disturbed land, and no trees, shrubs, or habitat would be directty disturbed. Potential indirect noise-related impacts
could occur to special-status bird species if project construction coincides with the breeding season.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Woler Projects IS/MND
PogelS-30
ieptei-R9er 1$\ 2011
November 14 201 2
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Camino
Real
ES-5 at Haymar Drive
rlsbad
~8,1,;d
ES-5 at Tamarack Ave &
Carlsbad Village Drive
,~ eal
ES-2 at Encina Power Station
ES-2 at Avenida
Encinas & CWRF
ES-9 at Ponto Dr
Source: ESRJ, 2010: SanGIS. 2011
0
/\TKINS
1
Mites
2
ES-5 at Park Dr &
Laguna Riviera Park
l.egolJnd
Po,nsctll.l
Parle ES-1 at West Oaks Way
'¼tuquitos Lagoon
N
0
ES-5 at
Palmer Way
ls,21
f,
ES-1 at Palomar
Oaks Way
Alga Rd
ES-8 at La Costa
Resort and Spa
A PHASE Ill INDIRECT BIOLOGY IMPACTS
FIGURE 13
CMWO PHASE II RECYCLED WATER PROJECT$1$./M."l0
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potential indirect impacts to special-status species and their habitat from construction of the project components
listed within Table 3 could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration, as discussed
further below. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction; however, the CMWD has committed to
daytime construction hours and construction of the project would not require the use of nighttime lighting.
Therefore, no indirect impacts resulting from nighttime lighting would occur. In addition, as described in Section 9,
potential runoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas
would be controlled and reduced through implementation of the project features listed in Appendix A, including a
Storm Water General Permit, General Linear Utility Permit, and compliance with local development standards,
Including the preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and application of appropriate BMPs.
Therefore, potential indirect impacts associated with runoff and pollutants into offwsite undeveloped areas would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
Project components ES 1, ES 2, ES S, ES 8 and ES 9 would be constructed In the immediate vicinity of undeveloped
areas characterized by trees, shrubs, and man•made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) that provide suitable
nesting habitat ror 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 or common (non•sensitive} trees and shrubs within ornamental landscaped areas
during the general bird nesting season (Feb•••FV l January 15 through September 15~,•s•st 31) and/or raptor
nesting season (January 15 through July 31), which could potentially result in Impacts to nesting birds and raptors in
violation or the MBTA and COFG Code. Indirect impacts could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in
the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest, such that the disturbance results in nest
abandonment or nest failure. This represents a potentially significant impact; however, Implementation of
Mitigation Measure Bio-lA below would mitigate this impact to a less than significant level.
Con.struction 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 8io-1B through Bio-lF below would mitigate this impact toa 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 C.,lifornla Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Less than slgni·ficant with mitigation. In total, 17 sensitive natural communities have been reported at locations in
the vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites (Appendix B). None of the 17 communities are located within the footprints
of the individual project components. As discussed in Section 4 a), all of the project sites are characterized by paved
asphalt within existing road ROW, a developed golf course. or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or
previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal (weedy) and
ornamental landscape plant species. Therefore, sensitive natural communities are considered to be absent from the
project sites and no direct impacts would occur.
As discussed in Section 4 a), the project components listed within Table 3 would be constructed in the immediate
vicinity of undeveloped areas. These undeveloped areas could support sensitive natural communities. Construction
activities associated with project components ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, and ES 9 could result in potential runoff and
' inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to
construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could result in degradation or loss of off.site habitat and would
be considered significant. As discussed In Section 9, potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants
generated from construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with the proposed project features and compliance with applicable regulations
listed in Appendix A. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B through Bio-l F would prevent
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off.site sensitive habitats and mitigate this
impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, 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 Blo-18 through Blo-lF.
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled Wole< Projects IS/MND
Page IS-32
,aplem8er 19, 201 a
NQv&mbaf 14 2Q12
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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, fi lling,
hydrological intenuptlon, or other means?
Less than significant with mitigation. All of the Phase: Ill project sites are characterized by paved asphalt within
existing road ROW1 a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with acc,ess roads or previously
graded areas. No portions of the project sites occur within federally protected wetlands or other sensitive water and
wetland resources subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality
Control Soard (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 ocwr 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 act.ivities
would be controlled and reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the project features and
compliance with the regulations listed in Appendix A. Inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and
personnel into off-site wetlands would be prevented through the Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18
through Bio .. tF 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·lB through Bio•l F.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife spee:ies or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant. As discussed above within Section 4 a), the biological resources analysis included a thorough
review of information pertaining to the Carlsbad HMP and Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), Including
regional corridors and habitat linkages. No known wildlife corridors, linkages, or nursery sites occur within or in the
immediate vicinity of the Phase Ill project sites. All of the sites are characterized by paved asphalt within existing
road ROW, a developed golf course, or disturbed bare earth associated with access roads or previously graded areas.
The sites do not contain any resources that would contribute to the assembly and function of any local or regional
wildlife corridors or linkages. No suitable habitat exists that would support a nursery site. Construction and
operation of the project would not be expected to adversely affect the wildlife movement functions and values of
existing habitat in the immediate vicinity of project sites. Therefore, the project would not interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Less than significant. None of the proposed project components that occur within the boundaries of the coastal
zone would impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area or other protected re.sources, as identified within the
approved Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; therefore, the project would not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program, Including the Oevelopment Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant.
Projects located within Carlsbad are subject to the requirements of the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, including the Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements (HPMR) Ordinance. The HPMR
requires all development to comply with the Carlsbad HMP as well as the Implementing Agreement, the MHCP, the
Natural Communities Conservation Plan and l0(a)(l)(B) permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be
permitted to occur until all processing and permitting requirements of the HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled. As
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse m Re<:ycled woter Proje<:ts lS/MND
Poge IS-33
1i8f)tem8er 19» JO~:a
November ! 4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 offMsite undeveloped areas that
could support sensitive species and habitat; however, avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential
indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required,
potential Impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the HPMR Ordinance
and HMP. Implementation of the project would therefore not conflict with the adopted HPMR Ordinance and
impacts would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan., Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than significant. As evaluated above in Section 4 a}, Section 4 b), and Section 4 e), several project components
could result in potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP. The
CMWD is required to comply with the carlsbad HMP and provisions of the carlsbad Municipal Code, including the
HPMR Ordinance. Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the C.rlsbad Planning Division
are required to incorporate project·level avoidance and minimization measures into the project description to be
consistent with the conditions of the carlsbad HMP. In addition, projects are required to implement project-specific
procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures described in the Carlsbad HMP if sensitive species and habitat could
be adversely affected by the project. Avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential indirect impacts to
sensitive species and habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required, potential impacts
on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad HMP requirements.
Implementation of the Phase Ill project would therefore not conflict with the adopted carlsbad HMP and impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation:
The following measures would mitigate the potential significant impacts identified in Section 4 a), Section 4 b), and
Section 4 c) to less than significant levels.
Bio-lA
Blo-18
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 consuuction activities requiring the removal, pruning, or damage of any trees, shrubs, and man•
made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.} ae\i••e Res~ or aR•f \Fee PFUAing or remo~•al operations
during the '3FiFAe Res4iFUJ!@Cneral breeding seasons, that being from MaFe,k lS 40 Ma\• 3g January 15 to
September lS, the C1ty shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey shall ,"rYey
the t,ee< to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction.
The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior tg the start of construction for a Particular
project component.of ~ree reRleYal or prttAing,
If any active raptor nests are located on or within 500 feet of the areas planned for constructign, gr if any
active passerine (songbird} nests are located on or within 300 feet of the areas planned for construction
the Qty shall retain a oualified biologist to flag and demarcate the 1ocati9ns of the nests and monitor
construction activities. No construction activities shall oo tFee pFYning or reR-10•.•al eper-atien5 can occur
until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestlings have
fledged the nestYaEillee or until the end of the ~general breeding season, whichever cxcurs later. IA
addilien, pFier ta any tree FeRlsYal er pruning opeFatiens pFeposeet outside of the pFiRle nesting season
but "''~I• the pe,ied ef Ja•"a,y l!i le September lS, aE, qualified biologist shall confirm, in writing. that
no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result 9f construction activities.
Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the
City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans.
Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, ES 2, ES
5, ES 8, and ES 9 that will occur within disturbed or developed land, but are sited immediately adjacent to
an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycle<! Waler Projects IS/MND
Page IS-34
Septemeer 1~. :!QI~
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Bio-IC
Bio-1D
Bio-IE
ENVIRONMENTAl INITIAL STUDY
habitat potentially suitable for special status species), the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to
perform a pre-construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project
construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction
for a particular project component. The CMWO 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 portlon(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space
area.s 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 califomla gnatcatcher (Polloptilo
californico ca/ifornica), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the
area. The pre-construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWO prior to construction in order
to verify the need for additional construction measures proposed within Bio-lC through Blo-lF.
Orange ConS1ructlon Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-
18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat
potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWO 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 dearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the
approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of
construction activity. Fencing shall be Installed In a manner that does not Impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until the problem
has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon
completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City
Planner prior to and concurrent with construction.
Construction•Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (Januar"y 15
to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal C3Iifornia 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 neS1ing sites during the general breeding season {January 15
through September 15).
If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio•lB that the project could result
In construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD
shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be
present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area
potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and
confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and CDFG to ensure the proper implementation of additional
protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and/or
COFG within 24 hours of its occurrence.
ConS1ructlon Staging Areas. lfit Is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18
that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially
suitable for special status species, the CMWO shall design final project conS1ruction staging areas such
that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall
receive approval by the Qty Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of
equipment outside of the project boundaries.
Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio .. 18 that the
project would occur Immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat area.sand/or habitat potentially suitable
for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre•construction meetings
to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization
requirements.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase QI Roeycled Wa ter Projoets 1$/MND
Page IS-35
&opl8rP9or 1$, 2Q12
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potendaly Loss Than Loss Than
Slgnlflant Significant Wrtt\ ~1nlficant
~ct Mitigatlon Impact No Impart
5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a □ □ ~ □ historical resource as defined in §15064.57
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an □ □ ~ □ archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.S?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pateontological □ □ ~ □ resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, induding those interred □ □ ~ □ outside of formal cemeteries?
Explanation:
Information presented in this section is based upon a cultural resources records search performed by Atkins at the
South Coastal Information Center in January 2012 (Atkins 2012) for the 2012 Master Plans EIR, which included the
Area of Potential Effect of the proposed Phase Ill project.
a) Cause a substantjal adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the record search conducted for the Master Plans EIR, no historical resources
are located within one mile of the proposed Phase Ill pipeline alignments, Twin O 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 re.sources are generally ftqually distributed throughout the project area, but can be described
as concentrated around and near existing, large water resources, Including Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda, and
Batiquitos Lagoon. Based upon the frequency and distribution of these sites, as well as the results of the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) records search, the entirety of the project area is considered to exhibit high
archaeological resource sensitivity.
The records search conducted for the 2012 Master Plans EIR identified one known archaeological resource withit>
t~e pFeHiFAily ofpotential to be impacted by ES 7, as proposed in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. Refer to
Table 4.4-4 of the 2012 Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects with Potential to Result in Significant Impacts to Known
Archeological Resources or Would Occur in Previously Undisturbed Areas. The entirety of ES 7 includes the
proposed Phase Ill alignment and an extension of pipeline to serve the proposed Quarry Creek Development. The
known cultural resource identified In the 2012 Master Plans EIR is In the vicinity of the Quarry Creek portion of ES 7,
located In currently undeveloped land. This portion of ES 7 is not included as part of the proposed project.
Potential impacts to cultural resources that would result from the portion of ES 7 in undeveloped land will be
addressed in the EIR that is being prepared for the Quarry Creek development.
The CWRF expansion and new storage tank would make improvements to existing facilities. The site for the new
tank has been previously graded. ES 4A would convert an existing pipeline to recycled water use. No ground
disturbing activities would be required for construction of the CWRF expansion, construction, or relocation of a new
tank, or implementation of ES 4A. Therefore, these projects would not result in any impacts to known or unknown
archeological resources.
The remainder of the components of the Phase Ill project, including ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, ES 18, and the portion
of ES 7 not within the Quarry Creek Development (as shown in Figure 8) would involve installation of new pipelines
I J\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled WO(e< Projecl! IS/MND
Page ls.-36
hf318M~er 19, 2Q~2
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INlllAL 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. The.se
project components were included in Table 4.4 .. 2 of the Master Plans EIR, CIP Projects Where Impacts are Minimized · I through Implementation of Project Design Features. Archaeological resources within the read..-a1· RO'.'Jpreviously
disturbed areas would have been removed or destroyed by previous construction. Therefore, the proposed Phase Ill
project would not result in additional impacts to archeological re.sources 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 resourc-es would reduce potential impacts to potentially significant unknown archaeological resources
to a less than significant level.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
less than significant. A paleontological resource analysis of the project area was included as part of the 2012 Master
Plans EIR (Burwasser 2010; Kennedy and Tan 2002). According to this data, the project area contains one geologic
unit of high paleontological sensitivity: the Santiago formation. Excavation and construction activities associated
with the Phase Ill project components located within the Santiago formation have the potential to disturb or destroy
paleontological resources. The Phase Ill project components proposed in areas with high paleontological sensitivity
include ES 1, ES 5, ES 7, and ES 18. However, these project components would be located entirely within existing
roadways. Potential paleontological resources In these roadway ROWs have already been disturbed and the Phase
Ill project would not result in additional impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts to paleontological
re-sources from the Phase Ill project would be less than significant.
d) Disturb any human remains, Including those Interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than significant,, None of the Phase Ill 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 pre.sent 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.S(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines assign special importance to human remains and specifies
procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed under
PRC Section 5097.98. The disturbance of any human remains is considered a significant impact, regardless of
archaeological significance or association. Any ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the
Phase Ill project, including trenching and excavation during construction, would have the potential to unintentionally
disturb human remains, resulting in a significant impact.
Implementation of the required protocol in accordance with PRC Section 5097.98 and California State Health and
Safety Code Se<:tion 7050.5, to be followed upon unintentional disturbance of human remains. would minimize
potential impacts on human remains. catifornia State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.S dictates that no further
disturbance is permitted to occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined by the County Coroner to be Native
American, the NAHC will be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC will be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains. A professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience will
conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, Identified by the
NAHC. As necessary and appropriate, a professional archaeologist will be retained by CMWD to provide technical
assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including but not limited to, the excavation and removal of the human
remains. Compliance with California State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 would
reduce any potential impacts to human remains from the Phase Ill project to a level below significance and no
further mitigation would be required.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Woter Projects IS/MND
Poge IS-37
Sopiembor l$t, 2012
Noyembe( 14 2()12
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potf.otld1ty ~Th111 leul'h,;n
Slgnlftgnt SlcnUlcant With $l£fllflant
, .... ct Mltlptlon ,., .. ct Notmpa«
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
invotving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map □ □ □ issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ~ □
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ □ ~ □
iv) landslides? □ □ ~ □
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ □ ~ □
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project and □ □ ~ □ potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks □ □ □ to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems □ □ □ where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Explanation:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects., including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Speclal Publication 42.
Less than significant. The areas within the vicinity of the project components are not underlain by any known active,
potentially active, or inactive faults, and are not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineated
by the California Geological Survey {2010). Active faults in the region that could result in rupture include segments
of the San Jacinto, Elsinore, and Rose Canyon fault systems. These faults are not located within the project area.
Additionally, none of the proposed facilities involve human habitation; therefore, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act is not applicable to the project. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to
substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture.
IL 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 groundshaklng has the potential to result In
significant structural damage or facility failure1 which could result in flooding and/or loss of recyded water. Due to
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled Woter Projecl, IS/MND
Poge IS.JS
~
November l 4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
the high seismic potential of the entire county, groundshaking risks cannot be entirely eliminated. However, the
CMWD would be required to Implement the relevant requirements of the 2010 California Building Code (as updated
or amended) and California Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, which would reduce
groundshaking impacts to the extent feasible. Additionally, as described in the construction measures listed in
Appendix A, a site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each
Phase Ill project component that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil. CMWD would be required
to implement any measures included in the geotechnical investigation to address potential site-specific hazards.
Therefore, potential impacts related to groundshaking would be less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
iv. Landslides?
Less than significant. Liquefaction is not known to have occurred historically in San Diego County. However, the
potential exists for liquefaction to occur in areas with loose sandy soils combined with a shallow groundwater table,
which typically are located in alluvial river valleys/basins and floodplains (County 2009). Additionally, certain lands
within the vicinity of the project components are subject to landslides. Generally, landsllde potential is considered
high for areas that contain slopes of lS 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 S, 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 previousty undisturbed soil.
CMWD would be required to implement any measures included in the geotechnlcal investigation to address
potential site-specific hazards related to liquefaction and landslides. Therefore, potential impacts related to
liquefaction and landslides would be less than significant.
b) Result In substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
less than significant. The CWRF expansion, storage tank construction or relocation, and ES 4A would not result in
any earth-disturbing activities that would result in the exposure of soils. However, earth-disturbing activities such as
excavation and soil stockpiling associated with the construction of the remaining Phase Ill project components
would expose soils that could be subject to erosion during rain and wind events. However, as discussed in below in
Section 9a), construction of the proposed Phase 111 project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or
General linear Utility Permit requirements to protect water quality during construction, particularly from eroded
sediment. In addition, construction would be subject to requirements established by the cities of Carlsbad,
Oceanside, or Vista, depending on project location. Compliance with the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A,
including the General Linear Utility Permit, and/or local development standards, including the preparation of a
SWPPP and/or implementation of applicable BMPs, would reduce the potential increase in erosion associated with
construction activities to a less than significant level.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project
and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant. See Section 6a). A site-specific geotechnic.al investigation would be completed during the
engineering and design of each project in a potential hazard area (ES 1, ES 2, ES S, 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.
I ATKINS CMWD Pll0$8 Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-39
$oplo,..t,or IP, 2012
Novamb&r 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAl STUDY
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Less than significant. Figure 4.6-2. Geohazards, of the 2012 M aster Plans EIR depicts the CIP projects that generally
have a high potential for expan.sive soils based on regional soil data. None of the Phase Ill project sites are located in
an area with high potential for expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. The Phase Ill project proposes new infrastructure and would not involve the use of or need for septic
tanks or and other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not affect
existing sewer service. No impact would occur.
P-otel'ltlalv LmThal\ LenThan
Sll"lflcant Sl&fllflcant With 51&:lllflc.nt
lm,-1 Mit1ga1ion Impact Nol~
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the □ □ □ environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, o r regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions □ □ □ of greenhouse gases?
Explanation:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Less than significant. California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines GHGs to include the following
compounds: carbon dioxide (CO,), methane (CH,), nitrous oxide (N,OJ. chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As individual GHGs have varying
heat-trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent
(C0 2e) units for comparison. The C02e ls a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it
normalize.s various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. The most common GHGs relat·ed to the project are CO2
(C0 2e = 1), CH, (C02e = 21), and N,0 (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, induding the incorporated cities such as El Cajon, and
may be used by lead agencies in the region other than the County of S..n 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 CO,e per
year. Therefore, a project that emits more than 2,500 MT CO2e annually during construction or operation would
result in a potentially significant cumulative impact.
The 2012 Master Plans EIR quantified the GHG emissions that would result from construction and operation of all of
the OP Projects proposed in the Master Plans, including the Phase Ill project. Construction of the project would
result in temporary emissions of GHG from the operation of construction equipment and from worker and building
supply vendor vehictes. Equipment that is associated with construction activity includes doze rs~ rollers, dewatering
pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery, and haul trucks. The 2012 Master Plans EIR determined that the w orst-case
annual construction scenario, which included the Phase Ill project, would re.suit in annual GHG emissions of 959 MT
CO2e. The worst-case construction scenario is described in greater detail in Section 2b). Construction of the Pha.se
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Woter Projects lS/MND
Poge 1S-40
SepteFRtaer 1$, 2012
Noyembe( 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMoNIAL INmAL STUDY
Ill project would be less than the overall total, and as a result would not generate significant GHG emissions during
construction.
Operational GHG emissions from the Phase Ill project would include indirect emissions from electricity usage and
direct emissions from mobile sources. The Phase Ill project would not result in an increase in demand for natural
gas, water, or solid waste disposal seivices; 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
generat·ors, 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 co,e {california
Climate Action Registry 2009).
The proposed Phase Ill project components are underground pipelines, a storage tank, and an improvement to the
existing CWRF facility. Following construction, the storage tank and underground pipelines would be passive and
would not require regular maintenance. Occasional vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to
existing pipelines. No new vehicle trips would be required by the CWRF for maintenance or operation of the
expansion. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not generate a substantial net increase in vehicle trips. In the
analysis in the 2012 Master Plans EIR, it was conservatively assumed that a net increase of one maintenance trip per
day would be required, for a total increase of 5 miles based on the distance from the City of carlsbad/CMWD
operations buildings on Faraday Avenue to the farthest portion of CIP Project ES 4C. All of the project components
are closer to the CMWD building than CIP Project ES 4C; therefore, annual GHG emissions would be less than the 1
MT CO,e calculated for buildout of the Master Plans.
The total annual GHG emissions from construction of the CIP projects proposed in the 2012 Master Plans EIR
(including the Phase Ill project) is 959 MT co,e. Operation of the Phase Ill project by itself is estimated to result in
operational GHG emissions of less than 397 MT C02e per year. Neither the construction nor operation of the Phase
Ill project individually would exceed the significance threshold of 2,SOO MT C02e per year. Even if construction and
operational emissions would occur simultaneously (totaling 1,356 MT CO,e), annual GHG emissions would not
exceed the 2,500 MT C02e threshold. Therefore, the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in a significant
impact related to GHG emissions. ,
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emiassions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant. AB 32, the califomia 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.
I I\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projecls IS/MND
Page IS.41 ..
$ephiM~er 19, 201'2
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Pountialy LtiSTha-n lfflll\aft
S11t1ificent 5i1:l'lillcllnt With Sllf'lil\wlt ,.,.... Mitiptlon tm~ct Nol~ct
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 ha:ardous 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.S 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 airstrip1 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 fires1 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 throu,gh the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Less than significant. Numerous federal and state regulations require strict adherence to specific guidelines
regarding the use, transportation, disposal and accidental release of hazardous materials. Regulations associated
with transporting, using or disposing of hazardous materials include the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act,
which provides the 'cradle to grave' regulation of hazardous wastes; Emergency Planning and Community Right•to•
Know Act, which requires any infrastructure at the state and local levels to plan for chemical emergencies; the
International Fire Code, which regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at
fixed facilities; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which governs hazardous materials transportation on
U.S. roadways; California Health and Safety Code, which provides threshold quantities for regulated hazardous
substances and the establishment of Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans; California Code or Regulations
Title 22, which regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste;
California Code or Regulations Title 27, which regulates the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous solid
wastes; SB 1889, which defines regulated substances as chemicals that pose a threat to public health and safety or
I ATKINS CMWD Phare i i Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND
Poge 1s-•2
SeptaR=18er 19, 2012
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENlAl INITTAL STUDY
the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive; and the Consolidated Fire Code, which
inciudes permit requirements for the installation, alteration, or repair of new and existing fire protection systems,
and penalties for violations of the code.
Construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project would have the potential to generate small amounts of
hazardous materials and wastes. Petroleum products such as fuels and oils would be the predominant materials
used during construction due to operation of motorized construction eguipment 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 a.s the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Therefore, impacts
associated with hazardous wastes generated from construction activities would be less than signific.ant.
Following construction, the proposed pipelines and storage tank would be passive and would not require the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, the CWRF currently uses chemicals and other
hazardous materials In Its treatment processes. The CWRF expansion would result in additional use of these
materials, including chlorine. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) has already been prepared for the CWRF
in accordance with County of 5;,n Diego Department of Environmental Health {DEH), Hazardous Materials Division
requirements. The HMBP includes an inventory of all hazardous materials and a description of each material's
properties, identification of the site operator, a map identifying the location of the hazardous materials, emergency
response procedures for major and minor emergencies, an emergency response plan, and a description of required
employee training.
Implementation of the CWRF expansion would result in a slight increase in the use of hazardous materials already
used at the CWRF due to an increase in the capacity of the treatment facility. Hazards related to these materials
could occur during storage, transportation, use, disposal, or accidental release. The proposed new CWRF treatment
facilities would be required to be incorporated into the existing CWRF HMBP. The procedures in the plan comply
with U.S. Department of Transportation (Office of Hazardous Materials S;ifety) and CHP regulations for the
transportation of hazardous materials along state highways, and are subject to approval by the OEH. 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 Ha,ardous 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 slgnlflcant 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 fuels1 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 OEH. This plan establishes procedures to minimize the potential for upsets or accidents to
occur in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations, and establishes emergency procedures should an
accident occur. Therefore, impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
I ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Pog&IS-43
&epteMller I~. 2013
Novembe! J4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
c) Emit hatardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. Operation of the storage tank and pipelines would not result in the release of hazardous materials to the
environment. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the CWRF. No impact would occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 6S962.S 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 111 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 Geo Tracker database is a geographic information system that provides online access to environmental
data induding underground fuel tanks, fuel pipelines, and public drinking water supplies. The EnviroStor database
indudes the following site types: Federal Superfund Sites (National Priorities List); State Response, including Military
Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. The Site Assessment and Mitigation Program
lists sites in San Diego County that require permitting for handling hazardous materials.
The Geo Tracker Database identified approximately 50 recorded sites along the Phase Ill project alignments and one
near the CWRF. Sites were identified along every Phase Ill alignment except ES 7. Site records induded leaking
underground storage tanks, land disposal sites, and other cleanup sites. Ten out of the SO recorded sites are open
cases; the remainder of the cases have been closed. Open cases involving leaking underground storage tank and
cleanup sites are concentrated near McClellan•Palomar Airport and gas stations along El Camino Reat. 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
ha,ardous materials establishments in Carlsbad. None of identified sites are located within a roadway ROW;
however, the potential exists for the soil underlying the Phase Ill project sites to have been previously contaminated
by hazardous substances as a result of former uses of the sites surrounding the alignment or leaks from unidentified
underground storage tanks. Typical pathways of exposure to pollutants from existing contamination include
inhalation of volatiles and fugitive particulates, and dermal absorption.
Potential ex.posure 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 ha,ardous 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 res·ult
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 durjng construction would be potentially
significant. However, implementation of mitigation measures Haz·l and Haz·2 would reduce potential hazards
related to listed hazardous materials sites to a less than significant level.
None of the Phase Ill project components propose a facility for human habitation that would potentiaUy result in
long-term exposure to risks from an existing hazardous materials site. The CWRF expansion makes interior
improvements to an existing building at the CWRF. Therefore, workers at the CWRF would not be exposed to any
additional risk from hazardous sites as a result of the project. Additionally, the site located adjacent to the CWRF at
the EWPCF (Case No. T0607300568) is closed and no future action required. Therefore, potential impacts during
operation would be less than significant.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycied Wole< Projects IS/MND
Poge lS-44
Sepl&f"FlgBr 19. 2012
NQvi,mbe( 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopte_d, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hat.a.rd for people residing or
working in the project area?
No Impact. ES 1 would be located within the Palomar-McClellan Airport Influence Area and Flight Activity Zone. The
proposed pipeline would be located underground and does not involve any construction or long-term operational
features that would result In an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No
structures for human occupancy are proposed in the Flight Activity Zone. Activities at Palomar-McClellan Airport
would be unaffected by the proposed project. Additionally, none of the proposed Phase Ill project components are
within the Airport Influence Area for Oceanside Municipal Airport. No impact would occur.
f} For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working In the project area?
No Impact. No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project. No impact would occur.
g) Impair implementation of or physlcally 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 e.cavation and ttenching 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 concurrentty blocked.
However, the CMWO has committed to preparation and implementation of a traffic control plan, as described in the
list of construction measures in Appendix A.. With implementation of a traffic control plan, the Phase Ill project
would not result in a potentially significant impact associated with impairment or interference with emergency
response or evacuation plans.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury or death Involving wildland fires, Including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
less than significant. Construction activities may result in a potential fire risk due to the presence of fuel -burning
construction equipment. The Phase Ill project components are located entirely within existing facilities or existing
roadway ROW in developed areas. However, some construction would occur adjacent to undeveloped areas. The
CMWO has committed to construction measures, listed in Appendix A to reduce fire risk during construction.
Preparation of a brush management plan and dissemination of fire safety information to construction crews would
ensure that construction impacts would not be significant.
Mitigation:
The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to listed hazardous materials sites
(Section 8d) to a less than significant level.
Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES S, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall
provide monitoring by an individual licensed In the State of C.lifornia to assess soil conditions for the
potential presence of contaminated soils. In the event of encountering hydrocarbon contaminated soils,
these soils shall be property tested, managed, and disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with DEH
requirements.
I /\TKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled Wole< Pr0j&el$ IS/MND
PagelS-45
i0PI0l"R~0r 1$, aQIJ
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENIAL INmAL SlUDY
Haz-2 Construction Worker Health and Safety Work Plan. Prior to construction of ES 2, ES S, 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 exdusion 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 Galifornia Occupational Safety &
Health Administration (OSHA) HA2WOPER 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 Oty of San Diego
or City of Oceanside, as applicable, and in coordination with CMWD.
I ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-46
SepteFA99F 19. 2012
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAL STUDY
Potenti•ly lflsTh~n lti$Than
Significant Significant With Sl1t1lfiont ,...,.., Miticl tion Impact Nolmp1ct
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, in duding 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 resul t in
flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage □ □ 0 □ systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
I) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? □ □ 0 □
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood □ □ □ 0
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which □ □ □ 0 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 □ □ □ 0 result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? □ □ □ 0
Explanation:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than significant. The Phase Ill project would have the potential to contribute to a violation of water quality
standards or the degradation of surface water quality during construction. Construction of the Phase Ill project
could result in polluted runoff through activities such as excavation, stockpiling of soil.sand materials, and concrete
pouring. This runoff would have short•term adverse impacts on surface water quality. Typically, construction
activities invotve various types of equipment such as dozers, scrapers, graders, loaders, compactors, dump trucks,
water truclcs, and concrete mixers. Additionally, soils are typically stockpiled outdoors, in addition to other materials
that would be used later during construction.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Wale< Projects IS/MND
Page IS-47
5opioMl:ilOF lfil, 2013
Novemw 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVlRONMENTAL 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
ground4disturbing activities. The CWRF expansion and construction or relocation of the storage tank would make
improvements to existing facilities on previously graded sites. No ground-disturbing acidities would be required and
potential pollutants from construction equipment would be contained within the CWRF or Its existing drainage
system. Therefore, construction of these project components would not result in significant water quality impact
during construction.
Pollutants associated with construction activities for ES 1, ES 2, ES 5, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18 would potentially
degrade water quality if they are washed by storm water or non-storm water into surface waters. Sediment is often
the most common pollutant associated with construction sites because of the associated earth-moving activities and
areas of exposed soil. Sediment that is washed off site can result in turbidity in surface waters, which can impact
aquatic species. In addition, when sediment is deposited into receiving water it can smother organisms, alter the
substrate and habitat, and alter the drainage course. Hydrocarbons such as fuels, asphalt materials, oils, and
hazardous materials such as paints and concrete slurries discharged from construction sites could also impact
aquatic plants and animals downstream. Debris and trash could be washed into existing storm drainage channels to
downstream surface waters and could impact wildlife as well as aesthetic value. The potential increase in pollutants
associated with construction activities could result in a violation in water quality standards or a substantial
degradation of water quality.
However, construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would be subject to the Storm Water General Permit or
General Linear Utility Permit (for expansion segments that would disturb less than one acre) requirements, in
addition to requirements established by the cities of carlsbad or Oceanside, depending on project location. The Oty
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 ntle 15 of the carlsbad Municipal Code, Grading and
Drainage, including minimfting and stabilizing disturbed areas, protecting slopes and channels, controlling the site
perimeter, and controlling internal erosion.
If dewatering is required for any Phase Ill project, dewatering and discharge activities would be subject to water
quality guidelines outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System administered by the San Diego
RWQCB. Additionally, the CMWD has committed to the measures listed in Appendix A to minimize potential water
quality impacts, including a spill contingency plan and requirements for groundwater disposal, if encountered.
Compliance with the proposed project features and the applicable regulations listed in Appendix A would reduce the
potential increase in pollutants associated with construction activities to a less than significant level.
Following construction, the Phase Ill project would not result in any new impervious surfaces and does not include
any components that would generate potential water quality pollutants. Therefore, the Phase 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 Ill project components would affect groundwater recharge because they
would not involve the extraction or use of groundwater supplies. Further, each project component would comply
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled Woler Projecls IS/MND
Poge IS-48
Soplen-,13er IP. 2012
November J-4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAl STUDY
with all applicable construction storm water permits, which require the implementation of construction and post
construction BMPs1 as described above in Section 9a}. Compliance with the construction permits would reduce the
potential for the project to substantially interfere with groundwater quality to a less than significant level. The
construction and operation of the proposed Phase Ill project would not use groundwater and would not directly
affect groundwater levels. Dewatering, a method which pumps groundwater into either a surface water body or
directly into a stormwater drainage system, may be required to prepare sites for placement of proposed pipelines
and other underground facilities; however, the potential impact to groundwater would be temporary and would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Further, the Phase Ill project would only result in an increase in
impervious surfaces at the new storage tank site and would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, a
less than significant impact would occur as a result of the Phase Ill project.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river., in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off.site?
less than significant. land-disturbing construction activities for proposed Phase 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, induding 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 signific.ant level. Upon completion of construction, no increase in impervious surfaces would occur as a
result of the Phase Ill project. Trenched areas would be restored to their previous condition and no alteration of the
drainage pattern would occur. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the project would
not substantially alter drainage patterns and would not increase erosion and siltation.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on-or off-site?
less than significant. Land-disturbing construction activities, such as grading and excavation, could result in the
localized alteration of drainage patterns. Temporary ponding and/or flooding could result from temporary
alterations of the drainage system that reduce its capacity to carry runoff. However, construction of the Phase Ill
project would be required to comply with existing regulations that reduce the likelihood of alterations in drainage to
result in flooding impacts, such as those listed above in Section 9a). Through compliance with existing local and state
regulations, Including Implementation of construction BMPs, construction activities associated with the Phase Ill
project would not increase the rate and amount of surface runoff to streams and rivers in a manner which would
result in flooding on or off site.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
less than significant. Drainage facilities including storm drains, culverts, inlets, channels, curbs, roads, or other such
structures are designed to prevent flooding by collecting storm water runoff and directing flows to either the natural
drainage course and/or away from development. If drainage facilities are not adequately designed, built, or properly
maintained, the capacity of the existing facilities can be exceeded resulting in flooding and increased sources of
polluted runoff. As discussed in Section 9d), the Phase Ill project would have the potential to result in alterations of
drainage patterns during construction. This alteration in drainage patterns could exceed the c.apacity 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 over1oad existing drainage facilities and increase
flows and velocity which could result in flooding, increased erosion, and impacts to downstream receiving waters
I ATKINS CMWD Pho,e II Recycled Woler Projects IS/MND
Poge IS-49
iepteM~er 19, :!Qt2
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
and habitat integrity. However, construction of the Phase Ill project would be required to comply with state and
local stormwater regulations, including construction BMPs, which reduce the likelihood of runoff exceeding the
capacity of an existing storm water drainage system. Through compliance with the existing regulations, the Phase Ill
project would not increase runoff in volumes that would exceed pre·project site conditions and would not exceed
the capacity of existing storm water drainage systems. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 9 a), compliance with applicable state and local regulations would
prevent potentially significant impacts to water quality. Operation of the proposed pipelines would be entirely
underground and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The storage tank would be a passive facility
on an existing storage tank site and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. The CWRF expansion
makes improvements to an existing facility and would not discharge pollutants into receiving waters. Therefore1 the
proposed project would not otherwise substantialty degrade water quality, Impacts would be less than significant.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact. The Phase Ill project does not include the provision of any housing; therefore, the project would not
place housing within a 100-year flood ha.zard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FIRM or other
flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No impact. The Phase Ill project consists of underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities.
Approximatelv 20 teet of the ES 8 pipeline alignment would be exoosed over Encinitas Creek within the South La
Costa Golf Course; however, the 6 inch pipeline would be attached to the side of an existing bridge and would not
result in any additional interference with 100-year flows. Therefore, the project would not place structures which
would impede or redirect flow within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No impact. The dam inundation area potentially affecting the Phase Ill project surrounds the Maerkle Dam, in close
proximity to ES 8. However, ES 8 proposed an underground pipeline that would not be affected by dam inundation.
None of the Phase Ill project components involve housing or structures for human occupancy. Therefore, a dam
inundation event would not result in injury or death related to proposed Phase 111 project. No impact would occur.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No impact. A seiche is a standing wave in a completely or partially enclosed body of water. Although Maerkle
Reservoir is located near ES 8, this water body Is not large enough to be subject to seiches. Some overtopping of the
reservoirs may occur; however, ES 8 pro~bal>l>f an underground pipeline. The Phase Ill project does not propose
any structures that would be at risk from seiches.
A tsunami is a very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. Tsunamis can cause
flooding to coastlines and inland areas less than 50 feet above sea level and within one mile of the shoreline. The
CWRF expansion, ES 2, and ES 9 would be located within one mile of the coastline. However, these project
components propose improvements to an existing facility and underground pipelines. The Phase Ill project would
not result in new facilities at risk for tsunami hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would not be exposed to a
significant risk from a tsunami.
Debris flows, also known as mudffows, are shallow water-saturated landslides that travel rapidly down slopes
carrying rocks, brush, and other debris. The project area contains many areas with steep slopes, or mountainous
areas, that would potentially be subject to mudflows in the event of large amounts or precipitation. However, the
I ATKINS CMWD Pha,e Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
PogelS-50
ie~leMlaer 19, 2(H2
November 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Phase Ill project does not propose housing or buildings for human occupancy; therefore1 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.
Potetltillly Less Tha., t.essTh1t1
SiCl'lifiCIAt Silflitkant With SiCri"b-11 ,...,... Mltlptlon Impact NOIMPlct
10. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
□ □ □ (including,. but not limited to the general plan, specific plan1
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effe-ct7
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or □ □ □ natural communities conservation plan?
Explanation:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less than significant. The Phase Ill project proposes underground facilities and improvements on CMWD property
containing existing facilities. The Phase Ill project would not result in any new physical barriers following
construction. As discussed in Section 8g), the CMWD would implement traffic control plans during construction so
that roadways affected by construction would continue to be usable by vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists.
Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established neighborhood during construction or operation.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local c-oastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
less than significant. Construction of the Phase Ill project would be located within existing or planned roads, an
existing tank site, and the existing CWRF. Construction would result potential incompatibilities with surrounding
land uses if It would require a roadway closure. However, as discussed in Section 8g), a traffic control plan would be
implemented during construction of any Phase Ill project that would interfere with traffic flow. Construction
activities would also have the potential to generate noise levels that are incompatible with surrounding land us.es.
As discussed In Section 12d), construction activities would comply with all restrictions on construction hours
established in the carts.bad and Oceanside noise ordinances so that construction would not disturb sleep.
Construction activities would also include best management practices to minimize noise to daytime noise sensitive
land uses. Therefore, construction of the proposed Phase Ill project would not result in any significant land use
conflicts or incompatibilities.
The Phase Ill project proposes below-ground pipelines and upgrades to and existing tank site and the existing CWRF
and would not have local land use effects after installation. The CWRF expansion would not result in any change in
land use and would not result in any land use conflicts or incompatibilities. As discussed in Section 13, the Phase Ill
project components were designed to meet present and future recyded water needs for projected growth within
the areas served by the CMWD, consistent with the 2012 RWMP growth projections. Implementation of the Phase
Ill project would not induce any unplanned growth. The 2012 RWMP is intended to implement the recyded water
infrastructure necessary to meet the land use goals established in the carlsbad General Plan. The Phase Ill project
would also potentially require discretionary permits from the jurisdiction in which the project is located, whether it
be Uris.bad or Oceanside. Future projects would be required to comply with all applicable land use regulations in
order to obtain project approval and would be further evaluated at the time of project design and review.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND
Page IS-51
Sopten:itaer 19, 2012
NQvember 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not conflict with the Carlsbad General Plans or other land use regulations and
ordinances.
The Coastal Zone of Carlsbad is located within areas that are west of El Camino Real. The CWRF expansion, ES 1., ES
2, ES s, 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 {COP}. 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 COPs would
ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the local Coastal Program; individual components would
require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with the California Coast Act.
The Phase Ill project would not conflict with any existing general plan, coastal plan or any other land use plan or
policy, or result in any land use incompatibilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities con,servation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. As evaluated above in Section 4 f}, several project components could result in
potential impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the Carlsbad HMP. However, potential
Impacts on sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the Carlsbad HMP
requirements. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would therefore not conflict with the adopted Carlsbad HMP
and impacts would be less than significant.
Poltndally Ltss1'111t lffl ,,, ..
5fcnlflc;1nt S.,nlflant With 5lanlflc;1nt
""""' Mitis•tlon '"""" No Impact
11. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of D D D
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
D D mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general D
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Explanation:
a) Result in the loss of avallability 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 activety being extracted and utilized as exploitable natural resources within
Carlsbad. The Phase Ill project component areas are designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3, which Indicated that
mineral resources are potentially present. Additional geotee:hnical investigations would be required to determine
whether these areas contain resources of value, or are located in areas that do not contain mineral resources
{Dudek 2003, City of Vista 2011, and City of Oceanside 2002). Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not result in the
loss of a known mineral resource. No impact would occur.
I ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Wale< Projecls IS/MND
Page IS-52
ioplB"11>Br 1~. 2Ql2
November 1,4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAi. INITIAL STUDY
b} Result in the loss of availability of a focally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a focal
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. The Phase Ill project would be constructed within roadway ROW or at existing facilities. Additionally,
the proposed Phase Ill project consists of public utilities infrastructure that would not be considered incompatible
land uses that would preclude areas surrounding the project components sites from being used for mineral
extraction. No Impact would occur.
Pocentillty lfflllltn leuTh,11
SiCni5t.tnt Sicnifk:lnt Witl\ S111\ifkwit
lmp,ct Mltlg11tlon lmPfCC No tmp,n
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 exce.s.sive □ □ ~ □ 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 or1
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?
fJ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project □ □ □ area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation:
a} Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant. Construction of the project would potentialty result in temporary increases in noise levels from
the operation of construction equipment. Construction activities associated with the Phase Ill project would involve
the use of heavy equipment during trenching and extraction, and Installation of some equipment, such as the CWRF
expansion equipment. Equipment that would be associated with construction of the proposed Phase Ill project
includes dozers, rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, cranes, and delivery trucks. The magnitude of the
impact would depend on the type of construction activity, type of construction equipment, duration of the
construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any intervening topography. Sound levels
of typical construction equipment range from 60 dBA to 90 dBA at SO feet from the source {FHWA 2008).
The CMWO has committed to the measures list in Appendix A during construction of Phase Ill project to minimize
noise effects to surrounding neighborhoods, including distancing noise sources from residences, compliance with
applicable noise ordinances, and providing notice of construction to residents and property owners.
The City of C.,rlsbad prohibits construction after sunset on any day, and before 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday,
and before 8:00 a.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited all day on Sunday or holidays. In Oceanside, operation
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Woler Projects IS/MND
Page IS·53
$eptember 19-. 2012
November J4, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 CMWO would comply with all limits on construction hours established in the cities' noise
ordinances.
The City of Oceanside includes additional requirements for construction noise. In Oceanside, construction is
required to comply with the exterior noise standards in Table 4 unless the City Manager determines that
construction furthers the public interest and exempts construction from this required.
Table4 City of Oceanside Exterior Noise Standards
lone
Applicable Umit
(dedbels)111 Time Period
Residential Estate, Single-Family Residential, Medium Density 50 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
Reskfential, Agricultural, Open Space 45 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 o.m.
High Density, Residential Tourist 55 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
50 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
Commercial 6S 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
60 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
lndustfial 70 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m.
6S 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m.
Downtown 6S 7:00 o.m. to 9:59 p.m.
ss 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 Sis located in Oceanside. ES S would Install a new pipeline to increase the availability of recycled
water. The Oceanside Gty Management would determine if this project would further public interest and would be
exempted from the hourly noise level limits. Regardless, the project design features above would minimize
construction noise. Additionally, the proposed Phase Ill project would not be constructed all at once and not all
equipment would be operating at the same time. Pipeline projects would be constructed in a linear fashion and
would only result in construction noise at a particular receptor for a short time. Therefore, implementation of the
Phase Ill project would not exposure people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the
Carlsbad or Oceanside noise ordinances during construction.
Following construction, the potential transportation noise sources for the Phase Ill project would be primarily
associated with vehicular trips by employees. However, as addressed in Section 2, operation of the Phase Ill project
would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The Phase Ill project would make improvements to the
existing CWRF or are passive pipeline and storage projects that would not increase the number or maintenance trips
typically required. Additionally, maintenance trips would be to facilities throughout the project areas and would not
be concentrated on a specific roadway. Due to the minimal number and geographic distribution of vehicular trips
associated with the maintenance of the Phase Ill project, transportation noise Increases would be negligible.
Therefore, the project would not result in significant permanent increases in ambient noise associated with
transportation noise sources.
Following construction, the Phase Ill pipeline projects and storage tank would be passive and would not result in
permanent increases in the ambient noise environment. No operational noise impact would occur. The CWRF
expansion would increase the capacity of the CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact
basins. The CWRF currently generates noise from operation of pumps. Noise generating equipment would be
located within a conuete enclosure to attenuate noise. Additionally, the CMWO has committed to the construction
measures listed in Appendix A, including ensuring that operating equipment will be designed to comply with all
applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations. Therefore, the increase in capacity at the CWRF would not
permanently increase the ambient noise level surrounding the CWRF. Occasional maintenance and emergency
I I\TKINS · CMWD Phose QI Recycled Woler Projects IS/MND
Poge IS-54
Seple"'l:Jer 1 ~ 2011
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENT AL INmAL STUDY
repair activities on any Phase Ill project would have the potential to generate some additional noise. However,
these activities are sporadic in nature and do not occur at the same location for long periods of time.
Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not result in a significant impact related to substantial permanent
increases in ambient noise levels.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
less than significant. Vibration sources associated with implementation of the Phase Ill would be generated
primarily from project construction. Once installed, the Phase Ill project faclllties include passive pipelines and
treatment facilities that do not generate substantial levels of vibration.
Construction·related vibration would have the potential to impact nearby structures and vibration-sensitive
equipment and operations. The level of vibration generated from other construction activities would depend on the
type of soils and the energy-generating capability of the construction equipment. According to caltrans typical
construction activities and equipment, such as dozers, earthmovers, and trucks have not exceeded 0.10 in/sec peak
particle velocity at 10 feet. Vibration criteria for sensitive equipment and operations must be determined based on
manufacturer specifications and recommendations by the equipment user. As a guide, major construction activity
within 200 feet may be potentially disruptive to sensitive operations (C.ltrans 2002).
No pile driving or blasting, which would potentially generate higher levels of 'nbration, would be required for
implementation of the Phase Ill project. Phase Ill project components located near existing commercial or industrial
development that would require heavy equipment operation that may be potentially disruptive to vibration-
sensitive operations include es 1, es 2, es s, ES 8, es 9, and ES 18. As listed in Appendix A, the CMWD has
committed to providing advance notice of construction, between two and four weeks prior to construction, to
residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. The announcement will state specifically where and
when construction will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice will
be made, either in person or by mail. Therefore, vibration-sensitive land uses within the vibration screening distance
for major construction activity would receive adequate notification to prepare for potential vibration. Although
vibration may be an annoyance to residents, residential development does not include vibration sensitive equipment
and is not considered a day-time vibration-sensitive land use. As discussed under Section 4.11.3.2 (Issue 2},
construction activities would take place during the day in accordance with the affected cities' noise ordinances.
Therefore, construction of the Phase Ill project would not disturb sleep and would not result in a significant vibration
impact to residential development.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section 12 a), the proposed Phase Ill project would not generate substantial
new operational noise. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 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 u.se airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
PogetS-5S
SepteAC1Ger 19. 201~
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STIJOY
Less than significant. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located within cartsbad. Oceanside Municipal Airport, a public
airport, is located in Oceanside. ES 1 would be located within the McOellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and
Flight Activity Zone. However, the Phase Ill project would construct recycled water infrastructure and do not involve
any construction or long-term operational features for human occupancy that would result in regular exposure to
aircraft noise from McOellan-Palomar Airport or Oceanside Municipal Airport. Therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.
f) For a project w ithin the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. There are no private airstrips located in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip. No
impact would occur.
Pottntlaly lfl1Thln lffl~n
Sia,'lifictnt 5it:l'lificantWrtfl S'IJflifieant
.., .. ct Mitic•tiOn
,_
No~ct
13. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth In an area, either
directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or □ □ □ indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing □ □ □ 0
elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the □ □ □ 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Explanation:
a) Induce substantial population growth In an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No impact. Implementation of the Phase Ill project would not directly induce population growth because the project
does not propose any new homes or business that would directly attract new growth. Additionally, implementation
of the Phase Ill project would not indirectly induce population growth because the plans have been developed to
accommodate projected population growth associated demand for recycled water projects in the 2012 RWMP,
which was prepared based on the carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Growth Database. Therefore, the
projected population growth of the region that would be accommodated by the proposed Phase Ill was based upon
existing and planned land use data for the project area. The Phase Ill would not result in population growth. No
impact would occur.
b) 0i.splace 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 oc-eur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. No people would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not necessitate the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.
I I\TKINS CMWO Pho,e Ill Recycled water Projects !S/MND
Poge 1$.56
Sepier,:i~rnr 1$>-. 2Ql2
Nwemw 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Potentblly le:s$ Thin Less Than
S-,nilieant Signifiaint With Sienifkant
1mpaa Mitqatiotl Impact Hotmpact
14. Public Services
Would the project re.suit in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire Protection? 0 0
Police Pr ~ D D
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Explanation:
a) Fire Prot ection?
D D D D D D
D
D B
D
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for fire services. As such, the project would not require
the provision of new or physicalty altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
envfronmental impacts. ,Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Police Protection?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result In an Increased demand for police services. As such, the project would not require
the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Schools?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an increased demand for schools. As such, the project would not require the
. provision of new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Parks?
No impact. The Phase Ill project 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 parks. As such, the project would not require the
provision of new or physically aliered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts. Therefore, no Impact would occur.
e) Other Public Facilities?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to recycled water facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and installation of new pipelines. The proposed project does not contain any residential uses or any
other land uses that would result in an Increased demand for other public services. As such, implementation of the
Phase Ill project would not require the provision of new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no impact would occur.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Wole< Projects IS/MND
Poge IS-57
SepteFRGar 19:, 2012
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
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 indude recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Explanation:
Potenti .. ., Less Th-.n
Slc:N~t ~&~8alnt Wlth
Impact Mlttptlon
□ □
□ □
LessTh♦n
51a,ilflant -
□
□
No Impact
a) Would the project Increase the use of exist:ing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational fae:ilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No impact. The Phase Ill project includes improvements to the existing facilities, construction or relocation of a
storage tank, and Installation of new pipelines. The Phase Ill project does not contain any residential uses or other
land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore, implementation of the Phase Ill project would
not impact the use of parks or other recreational facilities. There would be no Impact to recreational facilities, and
no further analysis Is required. No impact would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No impact. The project includes improvements to the existing facilities and installation of new pipelines. The project
does not contain any residential uses or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Therefore,
the project would not require the construction or expansion of new recreational facilities. There would be no
impact to recreational facilities, and no further analysis is required. No impact would occur.
Pott<t1tblly lUSTh~II
S11rilfla11t 5lclllfla 11t With
'"""" MitiJ•tion
16. Transportation/Traffic
Would the project:
a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system,
based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as
designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking □ □ into account all relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service
□ □ standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads or highways?
c) Result In a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results □ □ in substantial safety risks?
I ATKINS CMWD Pho>& Ill Recycled Weier Projecl> IS/MND
Poge IS-58
lmTh,n
Slcllffkallt
lmpad Nolmpad
□
□
□
5GPl8MQor I~ • .!Ql 2
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Et-lVIRONMENTAL lt-llTIAl STUDY
P«Md11ty Lfflll,.., ........
~1nlflant 5lcnlficant W'rth Slgnlflant
'"""" Mltlptlon Impact Nolmpu1
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., □ □ □ 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ 0 □
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs □ □ 0 □ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turi,outs,
bicycle rad<s}?
Explanation:
a} Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as
designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the
circulation system, induding but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would generate construction-related trips from
trucks hauling soil and/or debris from the construction sites; trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the
construction sites; and construction workers driving to/from the construction sites. These localized increases in
construction traffic would be temporary. Construction of the Phase Ill project would not occur all at once, and
would take place throughout the study area so that even simultaneous construction projects would not concentrate
traffic on the same roadways. Construction traffic would only affect a limited area immediately surrounding the
active construction area for a short time during construction of a particular Phase Ill project. Construction projects
would not be expected to generate an increase In vehicular trips that would degrade the level of service on
surrounding roadways to below an acceptable level.
The Phase 111 project would require the installation of new pipelines (ES 1, ES 2, ES S, ES 7, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18)
within the public ROW. S1aging 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 clrculatlon during the short-term course of construction activities. The CMWD will prepare and implement a
traffic control plan1 as described in the construction measure for Transportation/Traffic listed in Appendix A.
Implementation of the traffic control plan would reduce potential impacts during construction to a less than
significant level.
Permanent traffic associated with operation of the Phase Ill project would occur primarily from vehicular trips by
employees. However, operation of the project would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The
proposed project components are underground pipelines and improvements to existing facilities. Following
c-onstruction, the underground pipelines would be passive and would not require regular maintenance. Occasional
vehicle trips may be required for repair or inspection, similar to existing pipelines. The CWRF and Twin D tank site
currently require vehicle trips for maintenance. The CWRF expansion and new or relocated storage tank would not
result in new maintenance vehicle trips. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be
distributed on roadways throughout project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways within the study area. Implementation of the proposed
Phase Ill project would not result in long·term impacts to traffic. The project would not degrade the traffic level of
service in the study area. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards establlshed by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less than significant. Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadways that serve the Oty of carlsbad, and the
portion of the Oty of Oceanside In the project area, Include Interstate 5, State Route 78, El Camino Real, Palomar
I J\TKINS CMWD PhOse Ill R&cycled Woler Projects IS/MND
Poge 15.59
Sep1eMtier I$>, 2Qi :3
November 14 20l2
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAL STUDY
Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road (SANOAG 2008). Construction of the proposed project would not require
construction in any of these CMP roadway ROW, with the exception of El (amino Real. As discussed in Section 16a),
the CMWD would implement a traffic control plan to reduce potential impacts to traffic flow during construction to
a less than significant level. In addition, operation of the Phase Ill project would generate a negligible increase in
vehicles trips in the area. Any incremental increases in maintenance vehicle trips would be distributed on roadways
throughout the project area and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
Intersections. street segments and freeways within the study area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the 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 Ill project would not involve the construction of facilities that would
require changes in air traffic patterns from increased traffic levels, location or design. No impact would occur.
d) SubS1antially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No impact. The Phase Ill project consists of underground pipe.lines and improvements to CMWD properties that are
developed with existing facilities. The improvements to existing facilities would not be located adjacent to public
roadways. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible
uses. No impact would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant. Emergency access could be temporarily affected by construction in roadway ROW, which
would restrict access the area surrounding the construction sites, but roadways would not be permanently affected
by Implementation of the Phase Ill project. Lane closures during construction would have the potential to result in
inadequate emergency access. However, implementation of the traffic control plan described in Appendix A,
including coordination with emergency service providers, would ensure that significant impacts would not occur
during construction of any of the proposed Phase Ill project components.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting atternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
less than significant. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and public transit could be temporarily affected by
construction within roadway ROW, but facilities would not be permanently affected by implementation of the Phase
Ill project. Therefore, the Phase Ill project would not conflict with policies or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise permanently decrease the access, performance, or safety of such
facilities. As discussed in Section 16a), lane and sidewalk enclosures during construction would have the potential to
decrease the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities. However, implementation of the traffic
control plan would ensure that significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycled facilities would not occur during
construction of the proposed Phase Ill project. Construction of ES 2 in the railroad ROW would be installed using the
trenchless jack-and-bore construction method and would not interfere with railroad operation. Therefore, impacts
to alternative transportation would be less than significant.
I J\TKINS CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Wale< Projecls IS/MND
POii<' IS-60
SepleM'1!8f 19-, ~12
Novembec lA, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
1>04tntlaly ltu~n -"'~ $1p,lflant $ip1lflcan1 W1'th SiJnilk.ant
ln-.,.ct Mrtlgatiotl '"'""' No W!'lpact
17. Utilities and Service Syst ems
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?
I} Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to □ □ ~ □ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g} Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and □ □ ~ □ regulations related to solid waste?
Explanation:
a} Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No impact. Construction of the proposed pipelines would potentially require the dewatering; however, the
dewatering effluent would be treated prior to discharge into the City's sanitary sewer system such that the water
quality would meet the requirements of the EWPCF and the RWQCB. Operation of the recycled water pipelines,
storage tank, and CWRF expansion would not generate wastewater; they would treat and convey treated
wastewater as part of the CMWO'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 con.struction of wh1c.h could cause slg.nlficant environmental effects?
No impact. The Phase Ill project would not require potable water or generate wastewater. In addition, there is no
new development associated with the proposed project which would increase potable water demand or wastewater
generation. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (other than those associated with the proposed Phase Ill project
to treat and convey recycled water). No impact would occur.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact. The proposed project is an expansion of the CWRF, construction or relocation of a storage tank, and
underground recycled water pipelines; operation of the pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not
discharge into the storm water drainage system or generate surface runoff. In addition, no new Impervious surfaces
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled Waler Projecls IS/MND
Page IS-ol
$8f)l8Ml>8r 19, 2Ql2
November J 4. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 entitlements needed?
Less than significant. Construction of the proposed project would potentially require the use of water for fugitive
dust control and trench compaction. Construction~related water usage would be temporary and limited to relatively
small amounts; therefore, sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project from existing
entitlements. Operation of the CWRF expansion and recycled water pipelines would not require use of water. In
fact, operation of the Phase Ill project would reduce existing and future potable water demand by expanding the
availability of recycled water. Impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that
it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
less than significant. Wastewater discharged to the Carlsbad sanitary sewer system is conveyed to the EWPCF. The
EWPCF currently treats approximately 24 million gallons per day of wastewater, and has a treatment capacity of
40.Sl million gallons per day (Encina Wastewater Authority 2010, 2012).
Construction of the proposed project would potentially require the discharge of treated dewatering effluent into the
cansbad sanitary sewer system; however, wastewater generat.lon from dewatering operations would be temporary
and limited to small amounts relative to the capacity of the EWPCF. No wastewater would be generated by
operations of the Phase Ill project. Therefore, the EWPCF has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
less than significant. Construction-related non-recyclable solid waste generation would be temporary and limited to
small amounts relative to the landfill's available capacity and permitted daily throughput; therefore, there would be
sufficient landfill capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Moreover, the long-term
operations of proposed pipelines, storage tank, and CWRF facilities would not generate solid waste that would
impact the permitted capacity of area landfills. Operation of the pipelines and storage tank would not generate solid
waste. The only waste that would be generated by the CWRF would be disposal of filters and other equipment at
the end of its lifespan. Products would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and
regulations and would not impact local landfill capacity. Impacts to landfills would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant. As discussed in Section Sa), all demolition debris and construction waste associated with
construction of the Phase 111 project would be properly handled and disposed of, in accordance with federal, state
and local laws and regulations related to solid and hazardous waste. Disposal of CWRF equipment at the end of its
lifespan would also be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations. Impacts would
be less than significant.
I ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Water Project, IS/MND
PagelS-62
5SJ3t8~88F 19, 2012
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAl INITIAL SIU0Y
Pottntially less Than less Thin
Sicnifia,nt Sicni'lkant With Sip:,ificant
Impact Mitiption lml)lct No Impact
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self.-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a □ □ □ plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a □ □ □ project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
cl 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 lev~ls,
threaten to eliminate a plant or anlmal 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 l, 2, 5, 8 and 9 could result in potential
runoff that could affect wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, and inadvertent Intrusions of construction
equipment and personnel into sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. Mitigation measures
Bio-lA through Bio-lF would be implemented to ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant
indirect impacts to sensitive species, sensitive habitat, or wetland.
In addition, refer to Sections Sa) and Sb), above, with regard to cultural resources. The proposed project would not
eliminate important examples of the major periods of C.lifornia history or prehistory. The Phase Ill project would be
10<:ated in existing facilities or existing roadways. If unknown archaeological resources are discovered during project
construction, the CMWO 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
considerable11 means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of pa.st projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
Less than slgnlflcant. The cumulative impact analysis determines whether the proposed project's incremental
effects would be "cumulatively considerable" when viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, or
probable future projects. A cumulative impact is not considered significant if the effect would be essentially the
same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. In discussing the cumulative impacts, one question and
a possible follow-up question will be answered for each environmental topic:
I ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-63
SepteAC1laer 19, 20n
November l 4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 of the potential cumulative impacts of the
Phase Ill project, in combination with the remaining RWMP CIP Projects, the 2012 Sewer and Water Master Plan
Projects, and cumulative development in the CMWD services area. This analysis is incorporated by reference, and is
summarized below as it pertains to the Phase Ill project. The following environmental topics are not discussed any
further in this section because the proposed project would have no direct impact related to these issues:
Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, and Recreation.
Aesthetics. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to aesthetics is limited to the project site and its immediate
surroundings. The proposed project is located In existing roadway ROW and existing facilities in developed areas.
However, some areas of open space existing along proposed alignments. Consistent with the Master Plans EIR, as
cartsbad continues to develop, the appearance of the project area will continue to change from undeveloped to a
more built-out, urbanized landscape. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to aesthetics is significant.
However, following construction, the Phase Ill project would be located underground or within existing CMWD sites
containing similar infrastructure. A substantial permanent visual impact would not occur as a result of the Phase Ill
project. The Phase Ill project would not result In cumulatively considerable contribution to a potentially significant
cumulative aesthetic impact.
Air Quo/ity. 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.
Bioloqlcol 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 re.sources within and adjacent to the proposed project (Le., regional cumulative impact area) is
significant. Since the adoption of the Carlsbad HMP, project-level and cumulative impacts for development projects
within the city have been mitigated to levels of less than significant .. One of the many benefits of a regional habitat
conservation plan, such as the Carlsbad HMP, is that the cumulative effects of growth are mitigated by establishing a
process that preserves the most important biological resources in the region. Since its adoption, implementation of
the Carlsbad HMP has resulted in the conservation and preservation of lands supporting tile highest quality and
value habitat within the city. These preserve lands support special status species, sensitive natural communities,
wetlands, and other regionally important biologic.al resources. The preservation of this habitat ha.sallowed for
development within the city to occur without contributing substantially to a cumulative impact.
As discussed above within Section 4, construction of some project components would have the potential to
indirectly impact off-site undeveloped areas potentially supporting special-status wildlife species, sensitive natural
communities, and habitat supporting wetlands. The magnitude of potential impacts is anticipated to be relatively
low due to the small size of the project components and temporary nature of proposed activities. All sensitive
habitat areas would be avoided and the project would incorporate adequate setbacks and protection measures to
restrict construction activities within disturbed and developed areas. Potential runoff and increase in pollutants
associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through
compliance with the proposed project features, Storm Water General Permit, General Linear Utility Permit and local
development standards, including the preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of applicable BMPs. In addition,
the CMWD is required to adhere to the provisions of the HPMR Ordinance and Carlsbad HMP protecting sensitive
biological resources within the city. Through consistency with the Carlsbad HMP and implementation of mitigation
measures Bio•l A through 8io-lF1 the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution
toward impacts on special status species within the regional cumulative impact area.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projects IS/MND
Page IS-64
Sep,eM~er 1$, '2012
Ngvembef 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAL STUDY
Cv/tural Resavrces. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to cultural resources is defined as the areas served
by the CMWD, which includes approximately 40-square miles of land with a similar archaeological, ethnohistoric,
and historic setting as the individual Phase Ill project sites. The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative
impacts to paleontological resources encompasses the paleontologically sensitive geologic formation within the
project area, which is the Santiago Formation. Ground disturbance {e.g., grading, trenching, excavation) associated
with implementation of cumulative projects could have significant impacts on archaeological, historical, and
paleontologlcal 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 S above, implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact on
historical resources, known archeological resources, or paleontologicat resources. The CMWD has committed to a
protocol for the accidental discovery of unknown archeological resources that, if resources are di.scovered, would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, construction associated with the Phase Ill project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of archaeological or historical resources within the
regional cumulative impact area.
Ge9!9gy and Sgi/5. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with geology and soils is generally site•
specific rather than cumulative in nature because each site has unique geologic consideration that would be subject
to uniform site development and construction standards. The structural design for all of the cumulative projects, as
well as their associated construction activities, would be required to comply with all applicable public health, safety,
and building design codes and regulations to reduce seismic and geologic hazards to an acceptable level. Therefore,
because compliance with all applicable codes and regulations is required for all cumulative projects, a significant
cumulative impact associated with geology and soils would not occur, and an analysis of the proposed project's
incremental contribution to a significant cumulative impact is not reqlJired.
Greenhouse Gos Emissions. Refer to Section 7 a) for a discussion of cumulative GHG emissions impacts. Due to the
global nature of the assessment of GHG emissions and the effects of climate change, impacts can currently only be
analyzed from a cumulative context. Therefore, the analysis provided in Section 7 a} includes both project-specific
and cumulative impacts. As discussed in Section 7 a}, construction of the Phase Ill project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant global climate change impact related to GHG emissions.
Hazards and Ho1ardous Macer/a/s. The area of influence for cumulative impacts associated with hazards and
hazardous materials is sitewspecific, and therefore limited to the project site and its immediate surroundings. Due to
historical releases in the area, contaminated soils and groundwater are likely to be encountered during construction
of the proposed project and nearby cumulative projects, which would potentially expose the public and the
environment to hazardous materials. This represents a potentially significant cumulative impact; however,
implementation of mitigation measure Haz-1 and Haz-2 would mitigate the Phase Ill project's direct and cumulative
impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with hazardous materials.
Hydrology and Water Quality. The area of influence for cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality is
defined as the project site and the portions of the Carlsbad watershed directly downstream from the Phase Ill
project locations.
Water Quality. Even with the promulgation of storm water regulations, land disturbance and development activities
throughout the Carlsbad watershed continue to contribute to the overall water quality problems observed in runoff
flows that discharge into watercourses, lagoons, and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Water bodies in the Carlsbad
Watershed have been placed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) Ii.st of Impaired water bodies. Therefore, the baseline
cumulative impact pertaining to water quality is significant. As discussed above in Section 9, the Phase Ill project
would comply with the General linear Utility Permit and all other applicable storm water requirements, which would
ensure that the proposed project would not contribute to the further degradation of water quality. Following
construction, the Phase Ill project would not result in new sources of pollutants and would not result in a change to
the existing site drainage pattern. Therefore, construction and operation activities a.ssociated with the Phase Ill
I J\TKINS CMWD Pho,e UI Recycled WOIOf P,ojects IS/MND
Page IS-65
hfatsJ11:188r 19, JGn
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 lrom discharges of storm water associated with alterations of drainage patterns is
significant. As discussed in Section 9) above, the Phase Ill project would not result in permanent Impacts to existing
drainage patterns and would comply with all applicable storm water requirements during construction, which would
reduce Impacts related to drainage alteration, flooding, and exceedance of capacity of storm water drainage
facilities to a level below significance. The Phase Ill would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
the cumulatively significant regional alteration of drainage patterns.
Land LJse and Planning. Impacts related to consistency with land use plans and policies, and physical division of an
established community, are project-specific and not cumulative in nature. It is anticipated that development of
future cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Phase Ill project would undergo CEQA review which would require a
consistency analysis with applicable plans and polices. As required by CEQA, cumulative projects would be
consistent with the existing adopted plans, or require mitigation measures or design review to ensure consistency As
disct1ssed in Section 10) above, implementation of the Phase Ill Project would not result In new land uses that would
be incompatible with surrounding land uses and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore,
the Phase Ill project. in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact
associated with land use and planning.
Noise. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and is progressively reduced as the distance from the source
increases. The area of cumulative impact would be only those projects within the immediate vicinity of the Phase Ill
project. Construction of cumulative development projects is not likely to result a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels due to the localized nature of noise impacts, and construction projects would not occur
simultaneously or at the same location. In addition, construction noise for cumulative projects would be subject to
the noise standards within the appropriate jurisdiction. As discussed in Section 10), the Phase Ill project would
comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations that limit construction hours, and construction of the
Phase Ill project would implement best management practices to minimize construction noise. The Phase Ill project,
in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in cumulatively significant increases in temporary noise
levels.
Potential operational noise impacts from cumulative projects would be required to comply with the noise standards
for the jurisdiction that they are located in. As discussed in Section 10a), maintenance for the Phase Ill project may
require occasional vehicle trips for maintenance. Due to the minimal number and the geographic distribution of
vehicular trips associated with the maintenance of the projects, transportation noise increases, in comparison to
existing conditions, would not be perceptible. In addition, operational noise sources from pipelines and the storage
tank would be negligible once constructed since these are passive facilities. The CWRF expansion equipment would
be enclosed and would not increase noise levels existing noise generated on•site from pumps and other equipment.
The Phase Ill, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not result in a cumulatively significant increase
in permanent ambient noise levels.
Tronspottotfon/Trofflc. 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 rumulative projects located in close proximity would be constructed concurrently with the proposed project,
which could result in a cumulative short-term Impact to traffic conditions on these roadways. However,
implementation of a traffic control plan, as discussed in Section 16a) would mitigate the project's direct and
cumulative traffic impacts to a less than significant level by ensuring that adequate vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle
access is maintained during construction. Following construction, operation of the Pha.se Ill project would result in a
negligible amount of new traffic and would not result in a permanent impact to the regional transportation network.
I ATKINS CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled Woter PrOjects IS/MND
PogelS-66
SoJ]IBFR~er 19, ~13
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAL STUDY
UtiliOes 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 CMWO are responsible for providing adequate utilities and
service systems infrastructure to serve future growth that would be accommodated by the City of cartsbad General
Plan, and the portions of adjacent jurisdictions within the project area. If growth would not occur concurrently witl\
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 recyd ed water availability meet the projected
future demand of the currently adopted planning documents, and would also reduce future demand for potable
water. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant utilities and service systems impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant with mitigation. The proposed project would result in potentially substantial adverse effects to
human beings related to impacts on natural habitat and exposure to hazardous materials. However, potential
impacts associated with the project (e.g. biological resources and hatards and hazardous materials) would either be
less than significant or mitigated to below a level of significance with the implementation of mitigation measures
Bio•lA through Bio•lF, Haz•l ~ and Haz-2. These mitigation measures are described in Sections 1-17 of the Initial
Study and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the project.
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be u.sed w here, pursuant to the program EIR, or other CEQA process, one o r more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c}(3)(D)). In this case a discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
This analysis incorporates by reference the Draft EIR for the City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and CMWD Water
and Recycled Water Master Plans (Master Plans) Update (SCH #2012021006, EIR 12--01). The Draft EIR addresses the
potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Sewer, Water, and
Recycled Water Master Plan CIP Projects, induding the CWRF expansion, relocation or construction of a new storage
tank, and Expansion Segments 1, 2, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 18. This Initial Study also uses the information included in the
previous Initial Study and Environmental Checklist prepared for the Enclna Basin Water Reclamation Program Phase
II Project in December 1999, which included construction of the existing CWRF. Each of these prior certified
environmental documents are herein incorporated by reference. All referenced documents are available for review
at the City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
b) Impacts adequatefy addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
All of the checklist items were addressed above for the Phase Ill project based on the analysis in the 2012 Master
Plans EIR. Where appropriate, the EIR analysis was updated to reflect project-specific conditions.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Mitigation measures Bio-lA through Bierl f are based on mitigation measures Bio-l A through Sio-lf from the 2012
Master Plans EIR. These measures were slightly modified to be project-specific.
I ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Woler Projects IS/MND
Page IS-67
Gsptsffl8er 19, 2012
November 1" 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL SlUDY
Supporting Information Sourc e s
AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., Conservation Biology Institute, Onaka Planning and Economics, and The Rick
Alexander Company. 2003. Final Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. Administered by SANDAG for the
Cities of carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. March. Available
at http:/ /www.sandag.org/index.asp ?projectld=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. C.lifomia Historical Resources Information System Client In-House Records Search, South Coastal
Information Center. January 30.
Burwasser, G. 2010, Paleontological Resources Evaluation ofVallecitos Water District, 5an Diego County, california,
October 28.
California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Report Protocol, Version 3.1. January.
(alifornia Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of land Resource Protection. 2010. Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program -San Diego County Important Farmland 2008. October.
(allfornla Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Land Resource Protection. 2009. Williamson Act Program
-San Diego County Williamson Act Lands 2008. April 16.
(alifornia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012a. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), RareFind Version 3.1.0. August 2012 data.
(alifornia 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.
C.lifornia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.
(alifornia Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. January.
C.lifornia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012d. Special Animals. C.lifornia Department of Fish and Game,
Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California. January.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2003. The Changing C.lifornia: Forest and Range 2003
Assessment, Land Cover Map. Accessed January 2S, 2011, available at
http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/statewide/fvegwhr13 _map.pdf
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2009. Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area. June 11.
C.lifornia Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (v7-12aug 8-10-12). Data
provided by the participants of CNPS. Accessed August 22, 2012, available at
http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi
City of Carlsbad. 1996. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2010 Amendments.
August 14. On-file at the City of Carlsbad and available at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/LCPA.pdf
City of Carlsbad. 1997. Vegetation Community Data Provided by Oty of C.rlsbad GIS. Data available at the City of
carlsbad.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycle<! Wale< Projects IS/MND
POge lS-68
SepleM'98( 11l, 2012
Npvembftr 14 2912
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENlAl INITIAL STUDY
Oty 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 cansbad.
aty of Carlsbad. 2011b. Carlsbad Municipal Code. October 25. Available at
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?client1D=16245&stateid=9&statename=california
City of Carlsbad. 2011c. SDGE Energy FY 07 /08 With Facility ID, Cost, and Usage. Provided by Elzbieta Karczewski on
December 6, 2011.
City of Oceanside. 2002. City of Oceanside General Plan, Environmental Resource Management Element. June.
City of Vista. 2011. Vista General Plan 2030 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009121028).
December.
County of San Diego (County). 2009. San Diego County General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.
SCH#2002111067.
County of San Diego, land Use and Environment Group. 2009. County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining
Significance-Paleontological Re.sources. 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
#20030S1014. October.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Construction Noise Handbook. August.
Kennedy, M.P., and S.S. Tan. 2002. Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' X 60' Quadrangle, C.lifomia. California
Geologic Survey, Sacramento.
Nett Technologies Inc. 2010. Diesel Emissions FAQ: What are diesel emissions? Accessed January 5, 2011, available
at http://www.nett.ca/faq/diesel-1.html
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. April 22, 2009.
Accessed November 3, 2010, available at http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/2009-RAQS.pdf
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2011. 2010 Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program Report for San Diego
County. September 28.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2008. Final 2008 Congestion Management Program Update.
November.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2004. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport,
carlsbad, California. October 4.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Projecls IS/MND
Page 1S-69
SopieMtaer l 'il, 2QI~
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INmAL STUDY
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at
http://www.rws.gov/wetlands
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012c. Species Status Page. Available at
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusUst/CFWO_Species_Status_List.htm
Biological Resource Database and Literature Review
The following provides a summarized list or the primary resources consulted for the preparation of the biological
resource analysis.
Dotoboses
■ California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Database (CNOOB;
COFG 2012a);
■ California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2012);
■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2012a); and
■ USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2012b).
Literature Review
■ City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled Water
Master Plans Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Atkins 2012a);
■ Final Carlsbad Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Subarea Plan, herein referred to as the
"'carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMPt, including regional mapping data for vegetation communities
and conservation areas (City of Carlsbad 1997, 2004, 2011a);
■ Final MHCP Plan (AMEC et al. 2003);
■ COFG State and Federally Usted Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of california (COFG 2012b);
■ COFG Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens Ust (COFG 2012c);
■ COFG Special Animals Ust (COFG 2012d); and
■ USFWS Species Lists for San Diego County (USFWS 2012c).
List of Mitigating Measures
To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the
development of the proposed project.
Biological Resources
Bio•lA Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nestjng birds, including raptors,
protected under the federal MBTA and COFG Code, the CMWO shall enforce the following:
Prior to construct{on activities requiri ng the removal, pruning, or damage of any trees. 5h(UbS, and man•
made structwes (e.g., buildings, bridges. etc.I aeti•, e Rests or 0A'f tree pruAing OF reMeval eperaliOA5
during the pFiMe nestin@general breeding sea.sons, that being from Mareh 1§ la P1ay 3QJanuary 15 to
September 15. the City shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre;s:onstruction survey shall ser •e·,
title trees to determine if there are any active nests within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction.
The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular
project component.of tree remo•,•al or f;i!NAlng.
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 5hall retain 3 gy3lified bi9l9gist to flag and demarcate the locations of the nests and monitor
construction activities. No construction activities shall M tree fJRaAiAG or rema•,•al operatioM eaA occur
until it is determined by a auaiified biologist that the nests are no longer active and all nestHngs have
~ or until the end of the ~breeding s.eason, whichever oca.irs later.~
I ATKINS CMWD Pho,e Ill Recycie<I W0le< Proje<:ts IS/MND
PogelS.70
i 8~f8M~8F 19, 2012
Noxernbef J 4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
I Bio-18
Bio-lC
Bio-10
Bio-lE
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL SlUOY
addlUen, prior te 8A'/ ~ree FOFRO •al er f)Funing operations proposed 01:i1tside of Urn prifflle nesf:iing seaseA
bwt wit~in tl:le period of JanuaPi Yi to £eJiteR1!:ler 1§, aA qualified biologist shall confirm.,_ in writin&, that
no disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur 3$ a result 9f COOstructipn activities.
Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall be submitted to the
City Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be placed on the construction plans.
Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of project components ES 1, ~2, ES
5, ll_S, and li9 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 pri9r to \he Start 9f construction
for a p3(tiCyl3r prgject component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with a copy of the project plans
that clearly depict the construction work limits, including construction staging and storage areas, in order
to determine which specific portion(s) of the project will require inspection of adjacent open space areas
during the pre•construction survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of the
adjacent open space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the likelihood
for special status species to occur, including the coastal C.llfornla gnatcatcher (Polioptila colifornico
colifornico), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to breed in the area. The pre-
construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWO prior to constn,ction in order to verify the
need for additional construction measures proposed within 8io-1Cthrough 8io-1F.
Orange Construction F·encing. If it is confirmed throu,gh the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-
18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat
potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to supervise the
installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge of the approved
limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the
approved limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of
construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of Impact, all work shall cease until the problem
has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon
completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the City
Planner prior to and concurrent with construction.
Construction~Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season (January 15
to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal C.lifornla 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 i.s confirmed through the Implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18 that the project could result
in construction-related noise Impacts to breeding birds during the general breeding season, the CMWD
shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the construction operations. The biological monitor shall be
present to monitor construction activities that occur adjacent to the undeveloped open space area
potentially supporting breeding birds. The monitor shall verify that construction noise levels do not
exceed 60 dBA hourly average and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and
confer with the City Planner, USFWS, and COFG to ensure the proper Implementation of additional
protection measures during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the U5FW5 and/or
COFG within 24 hours of its occurrence.
Construction Staging Areas. If it Is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18
that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially
suitable for special status species, the CMWO shall design final project construction staging areas such
I ATKINS CMWO Phase Ill Recycled Woler Projec1s IS/MND
Poge IS-71
SsplBFA~Br 19, ao12
Npyembe, J.4 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Bio-lF
ENVIRONMENIAL INITIAL SIUDY
that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall
receive approval by the City Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of
equipment outside of the project boundaries.
Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio-18 that the
project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or habitat potentially suitable
for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to attend pre-construction meetings
to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization
requirements.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Haz-1 Excavation Monitoring. During excavation activities for ES 2, ES 5, ES 8, ES 9, and ES 18, CMWD shall
provide monitoring by an individual licensed in the State of C,alifornia 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 worl< plan and submitted to the DEH for approval. The
engineering controls and measures to be implemented if potentially contaminated soil is uncovered
shall indude, 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 induding 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 exdusion or support zones.
4) Site workers shall be required to wear personal protective equipment induding 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 OEH, and excavation shall be backfilled with inert soil or other material until
concentration drop back to normal.
I J\TKINS CMWO Phose m Recycled wote, Projecl, IS/MND
Poge IS-72
$8pl8M~8r 191 201 ~
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAL 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 followwon 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 &M.; { ~_, Date
Printed Name
I J\TKINS
t'vJ'/1; ll.ba E Plr2mm&-
CMWO PhOse Ill Recycled Waler Pr0jec1s lS/MNO
Page IS•73
i8i;J•9M~8f 1 $, JQ~ J
Novembet 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
I ATKINS
This page intentionally left blank.
CMWO PhOse Ill Recycled Wo!e, Projects IS/MND
Page IS-7•
ENVIRONMENTAL INITTAl STUDY
$opiorr::itior 1$, 201:l
Npvembft! 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Appendix A
Regulatory Compliance and
Project Design and Construction Features
Regulatory Compliance
Construction and operation of the Phase Ill project would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, induding 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, CMWO 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 a.s a result of active operations, spillage from transport trucks, erosion, or track•
out/carry-out shall be minimized by the use of effective trackout/carry-out and erosion control measures
listed in Rule 55 that apply to the project or operation. These measures include track-out grates or gravel
beds at each egress point; wheel·washing at each egress during muddy conditions; soil binders, chemical
soil stabilizers, geotextiles, mulching, or seeding; watering for dust control; and using secureq tarps or
cargo covering, watering, or treating of transported material for outbound transport trucks.
Biological Resources
Prior to construction activities for projects located within the boundaries of the city, and where it has been
demonstrated that the project could result in impacts to biological resources addressed in the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan {HMP) for Natural Communities, including HMP Species, Narrow Endemic Species, HMP
Habitats, Existing and Proposed HMP Hardline Preserve Areas, Special Resource Areas, and HMP Core and linkage
Areas, as defined in the HMP, the CMWD would demonstrate how implementation of the project would comply
with the requirements of the HMP, including the established conservation goals and objectives of the HMP, and
the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures identified for protected resources. The City would use its
land-use regulatory authority to fully implement the provisions of the HMP during project review, and would
follow the project processing implementation procedures as required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.210,
Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements.
Cultural Resources
During construction activities, CMWO would comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California
State Health and Safety Code 70S0.5, 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
S097.98. 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 MLO, including but not limited to., the excavation and removal of the human
re.mains.
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
I /\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled woter Projecls IS/MND
PogeA-1
se~teM~er 19, 2813
Novembef 14, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
updated or amended, and califomia Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117, "Guidelines for
Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in C.lifornia.• 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
C.lifornia Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (ntle 8 of the California Code of Regulations
(CCR)} and in Section A33 of the CBC. california Department of Mines and Geology's Special Publications 117,
.,Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," provides guidance for the evaluation and
mitigation of earthquake.related hazards for project components within designated zones of required
Investigations.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction activities would comply with the federal Oean Water Act (CWA), C.lifomia's Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
RWQCB, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA
and the NPDES program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water
Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and
the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
{MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of
Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated aties of San
Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (MS4
permit). Project components not falling within the triggering coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be
subject to compliance with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to
enforce storm water discharge controls required under the MS4 permit. For Phase Ill project covered under the
General Permit {e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD
would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prescribing Best Management Practices (BMPs), monitoring, inspection,
and 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
area.s or areas that would not be affected by construction is minimized.
■ Stabllltlng 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 penmanent 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 i.s
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.
■ Controlliflg internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are
detained (e.g., siltation basins).
I ATKINS CMWD Phase III Recycled Waler Projec1s IS/MND
PogeA-2
Seplemt3er 1$1, 201'.a
Novemtw 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 2S100 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.S 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 hatardous 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.
At.ency/Department
State Agencies
State Water Resources
Control Board, Regional
Water Quality Control
Board
California Coastal
Commission
camornia OeQariment
of TransQonatlQn
Local Agencies
Otyof Vista
City of cartsbad
City of Oceanside
I ATKINS
Table 1 Federal, State, or Local Permits and Approvals
Permit/Approval Action Assodated With or Required For
General Construct.ion Activity Storm Water Storm Water discharges associated with
Penn it SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 DWQ construction activity.
Waste 01.scharge Requirements (Water Code Discharge of waste that m~ght affect groundwater
13000 etseq.) or surface water {polnt/nonpotnt•source) quality.
Coast.al Development Permit Required for projects 10(.ated within a deferred
certification area in the coastal zone.
Encroac-hment Permit {Californla Stfeet.s and Consider issuance of 12ermits to cross state
Hlg~wax:s Code Sections 660 et s.eg.} highwa:r:s,
Encroae:hment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Conf0<mlty with Zonlng Required for construction within city ROW.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Discretionary Permit Required for construction activities within the city
requiring discretionary app<oval.
Required for potential impacts to sensitive species
Habitat Management Plan Take Permit or habitats covered by the cartsbad Habitat
Management Plan.
Coastal Oe-velopment Petrnit Required for projects located within a coastal zone.
Encroachment Permit Required for construction within city ROW.
Confo«nity with Zoning Required for cOn$truction within city ROW.
CMWD Phos& Ill Recycle<! woter Projects IS/MND
PogeA-3
Sapta~bar 1~, 401Q
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
Project Design and Construction Features
The CMWD has incorporated numerous project design features and construction measures into the project design
that are included in an effort to reduce the potential for environmental effects. The Phase Ill project would
incorporate the following project design features.
Aes'thetics
The following measures would be implemented into the design and constn,ction of the Phase Ill project to
minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the Phase Ill project:
■ Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off•site disposal.
■ Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to those depicted on construction drawings.
■ All roadway features {signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, etc) and stn,ctures 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
CMWO 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.
A.Ir Quality
The following BMPs would be implemented to mlnimi,e fogltive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant
emissions during construction of Phase Ill project:
■ Water or dust control agents will be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt stockpiles
as necessary to prevent or suppress partiC\llate 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 wori<day 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 constn,ction 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 1S minutes when not in service.
I J\TKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Wole< Projects IS/MND
Poge A-4
i8Pl8FR88r 1$1, lOI 3
Novemt>et 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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 storm.water conveyance systems.
Cultural practices such as restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer applications, storage or disposal of
toxic chemicals, or washing of vehides 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. deslg~ated 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 acUvities within 200 feet of important forage, breeding, and roosting
areas.
■ Require attenuation measures for activities that generate noise levels greater than 60 dBA if occurring
within 200 feet of Important breeding habitat during the nesting season.
■ Restrict construction hours to daytime hours that do not require the use of construction lighting.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
The following procedure for unintentional disturbance of cultural resources will be implemented to minimize
impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources during construction of Phase Ill project:
■ If subsurface cultural resources are encountered during CIP project construction, or if evidence of an
archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources are encountered, all ground-disturbing activity
will cease within 100 feet of the resource. A qualified archaeologist will be retained by the City or CMWD
to assess the find, and to determine whether the resource requires further study. Any previously
undiscovered resources found during construction will be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks
and Recreation (0PR} 523 forms and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist retained by the City or CMWD
for significance under all applicable regulatory criteria. No further grading will occur in the area of the
discovery until the City and CMWD approves the measures to protect the resources. Any archaeological
artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation will be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by
the City or CMWD where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.
Geology and Soils
The following measures will be implemented Into the construction and operation of Phase Ill project to minimize
potential risks from geologic and soil hazards:
■ A site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed during the engineering and design of each CIP
project that would require excavation in previously undisturbed soil, whicg, would determine the risk to
the project associated with fault rupture, groundshaking, liquefaction, lana'slldes, and expansive soils. The
geotechnical investigations will describe site~spedfic conditions and make recommendations that will be
incorporated into the construction specifications for the CIP project. Recommendations may indude, but
would not be limited to the following typical measures:
I ATKINS CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Waler Projecls IS/MND
Poge A.,S
$ep*ember I$, 201a
Noyambftr 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill.
Remove loose, unconsolidated soils and replace with properly compacted fill soils, or apply other
design stabilization features.
For thicker deposits, implement an applicable compaction technique such as dynamic compaction or
compaction piles.
Perform in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics.
For landslides, implement applicable techniques such as stabilization; remedial grading and removal
of landslide debris; or avoidance.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following measures would be implemented into the construction to minimize potential effects related to
hazards and hazardous materials:
■ Fire safety information will be disseminated to construction crews during regular safety meetings. Fire
management techniques will be applied during project construction as deemed necessary by the lead
agency and depending on~site vegetation and vegetation of surrounding areas.
■ A brush management plan will be incorporated during project construction by the City, CMWO, or a
contractor, as ne<:essary. 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 pr·epared for new facilities in accordance with County
Department of Environmental Health regulations and retained on site by the construction manager. If soil
is contaminated by a spill, the soil will be properly removed and transported to a legal disposal site.
■ If groundwater Is encountered and dewatering is required, then the groundwater will be disposed of by
pumping to the sanitary sewer system or discharging to the storm drain system according to the
conditions of the appropriate discharge permit.
Noise
The following measures would be implemented into the construction and operation of the project components to
minimize noise effect to surrounding neighborhoods:
■ Heavy equipment will be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences.
■ Construction equipment, induding 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 juri.sdiction.
■ 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.
■ CMWO or their construction contractors will provide advance notice, between two and four weeks prior
to construction, by mail to all residents or property owners within 300 feet of the alignment. For projects
that would require pile driving or blasting. noticing will be provided to all residents or property owners
I ATKINS CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Wale, Projects IS/MND
Page A-6
Sspt&R=lSBr l'il, 3012
Novemt»: u 201 2
July 17, 2018 Item #4
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.
■ CMWO will identify and provide a public liaison person before and during construction to respond to
concems of neighboring residents about noise and other construction disturbance. The CMWO will also
establish a program for receiving questions or complaints during coastruction 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 Il l 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 slgnage and flagmen when necessary to allow the heavy equipment to
utilize residential streets. The traffic control plan will also include provisions for coordinating with local
school hours and emergency service providers regarding construction times.
I ATKINS CMWD Pl10,e Ill Recycled woter Projects IS/MND
Poge A-7
Se~taM8ar 19, 20+2
November 14 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
I ATKINS
REGULATORY COMPtlANCE AND PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
This page Intentionally left blank.
CMWD Phose Ill Recycled Waler Projects IS/MND
PogeA-8
September 19:, ~QI~
NQy&mbe( 1-4 2QI 2
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Appendix B
Sensitive Biological Resources Tables
Sensitive Natural Communities Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Global State MHCP
Community Ranktll Rankf%1 Habitat GrouplJI
Non.,native grassland G4 S4 E
Valley needlegrass grassland Gl S3.1 B
Oiegan coastal sage scrub G3 S3.1 C
Oiegan coastal sage -chaparral scrub G3 53.2 C
Chamise chaparral G4 54 D
Scrub oak chaparral G3 S3.3 D
Southern maritime chaparral Gl 51.1 B
Southern mixed chaparral G4 S4 D
Coast five oak woodland G4 S4 B
Southern coastal live oak riparian forest G3 S4 A
Southern riparian forest G4 54
Southern riparian scrub G3 S3.2
Coastal and valley fres.hwater marsh G3 S2.1
San Diego mesa claypan vernal pool G2 S2.1 A
Mitigation Ratio1«.
0.5:l
3:1
2:1
2:1
1:1
1:1
3:1
1:1
3:1
3:1 (No Net Loss)
5:1
UJ Global Rank-The glob.ll fclnk is a reflection of the overall status of an element throughout its global range.
Gl • Criticalty tmperiled-At very high ris:k 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 icres. G2 11 Imperiled-At high risk of
extinction due to very restrteted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. Estimated 6-,20viable
occurrences or 1,00().3,000 Individuals or 2,000-10,000 acres. G3 = Vulnerable-At moderate risk of extinction due to a
restricted range, relatively few populatfons (often 80 or (ewer), recent and widespread declines. or other factors.
Estimated 21·80 occurrences or 3,000-10,000 Individuals or 10,000-50,000 acres. G4 = ~parentty Sewre-Uncommon
but not rare; some cause for long-term concetn due to declines or other factors. This rank Is clearly lower than G3 but
factors exist to cause some concetn; I.e., there is some threat, or somewhat narrow habitat.
<l:J State Rank-The state rank refer to the imperilment status only within califomia's State boundaries.
S1 • Criticalty lmperiled-Criticalty imperiled in the state becaus.e of extreme rarity or because of some f-actor{s) such as
very steep dedines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. Less than 6 occurrences or less
than 1,000 individuals or less than 2~000 acres. S1.1 • very threatened; S1.2 • threatened; Sl.3 • no current thre.ats
known.
S2 = lmperil~lmperiled in the st.ate bee.a use of r.arity 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 -S0,000 acres. S3,1 = very threatent!d; S3.2 = threatened; S3.3 = no current threats
known; S4 = Apparently Stture-Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long.term concem due to declines or other
factors.
OJ MHCP Rank-Habitat types located within the planning area of the MHCP h.ave 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.
1'• Mitigation ratios may increase or decrea.se depending on the resources present and where the impact and mitigation Is
proposed, as approved by the regulatory agencies and/or k>cal jurisdiction In whlch the Impact and mitigation occurs.
Source: CNDDB 2012; CNPS 2010; Oty of carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al. 1998
ATKINS CMWD Pr,o,e Ill Recycle<! Woter Projects IS/MND
Poge B-1
5eplembe< 19. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TA8tES
Sp ecial Status Plant Spec ies Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State CNPS
Common Name Scientific Name Statu.s<IJ StatusP> Ustm General Habitat Associations
NON-VASCULAR
bottle liverwott Sphoerocorpo,s drewe; 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal Krub.
California screw moss Tortu/a wli/ornica 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland.
campbell's liverwort Geothoffus tubero:ws 18.l Coastal scrub, vernal pools.
coastal tri(luetrella Trfquetrello colijomico 1B.2 Coastal bluff sc.rub, coastal scrub.
Shevock's copper moss Schizymenium shevockil 1B.2 Osmontane woodland.
ashy spike-moss Seloglnello clneroscens 4.2 Coastal sage scrub, chapamil.
Fem
canfornia adder's-tongue Ophlogfoswm lusitanlwm 4.2 Chaparral, grassf.ands, vernal pools.
fern ssp. call/om/cum
Angk,spenns -Monocotyledons
callfomla Orwtt grass Orcutt/a collfornica FE SE 18.1 Vernal pools.
Orcutt's brodiaea Brodioea orcuttii 1B.1 Vernal pools, valley and foothHl grassfand,
closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland, chaparral, meadows.
San Diego goldenstar Mui/fa clevelandll 18.l Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grass-land, vernal pools.
Shaw's agave Agoveshawii 2.1 Coastal bluff SC-f\lb, coastal scrub.
thread-leaved brocliaea Brodlaea fiJ;folia FT SE 18.1 Clsmootane woodland, coastal scrub,
playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools.
Angiosperms -Dicotyledons
Blochman's dudleya Dudleyo blochmonloe ssp. 18.1 Coa.stal scrub, coastal bluff scrub, valley
blochmonlae and foothill grassland.
Califomia adolphla Adolphio colifornica 2.1 Chaparral, coast.al sage scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
chaparral sand-verbena Abronlo villosa var. ouriro 18.1 Chaparr'al, coastal scrub.
cliff spurge Euphorbio miufo 2.2 Coastal bluff SCl\lb, coastal scrub.
Coulter's goldfields Losthenia globroto $Sp. 18.1 Coastal salt marshes, playas, valley and
coulteri foothi1J grassland, vernal pools.
Dean's milk-vetch Asttogolus deonel 18.l Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian fore.st.
decumbent goldenbush lsocomo menziesiivar. 1B.2 Coastal .scrub.
decumbens
Del Mar manzanita Atcrostophylos glonduloso FE 18.l ChapaiY"al, dosed<ene coniferous forest.
$Sp. crossifolio
Oel Mar Mesa sand arter Corethrogyne filoginijolio 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
var. lini/olio
dwarf burr (San Diego} Ambrosio pumilo FE 18.l Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
ambrosia grassJand.
Encinitas baccharls Bocchorls vonessoe FT SE 18.l Chaparral.
ATKINS CMWO Phose Ill Recycled Water Prajecls IS/MND
Page B-2
Seplembe< 19. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
SENSITIVE 1140LOGICAl RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMW0 Service Area
Common Name
Engelmann oak
Gambel's water etess
little mousetail
many-stemmed dudleya
Moran's navarretia
mud nama
Nuttall's scrub oak
Orcutt's l\azardia
0rcutt's linanthus
0rwtt's spineflower
Palmer's goldenbush
Parry's tettacoccus
prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
Rainbow manzanita
Robinson's pepper-grass
round-leaved fllaree
San 0iego barrel cactus
San 0iego bur-sage
San Diego button--ce1ef'y
San Diego marsh-elder
San Diego sagewort
San Diego thom-mint
smooth tarplant
snake choUa
ATKINS
Federal State CNPS
Scientific Name St atu.sl11 Status111 Ust01 General Habitat Assodat lons
Quercus engelmannU 4.2 Chaparral, coast live oak woodland,
grassland.
Nosrurt.lum gombelll FE ST 18.1 Marshes and swamps,
Myosurus minimus ssp. 3.1 Vemal pools.
opus
Oudleya multicot1lis 18.2 Chaparral, coastal K.rub, valley and foothill
grassland.
Novorretio fossofis FT 18.l Vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes and
swamps. playas.
Noma stenocarpum 2.2 Marshes and swamps.
Quercus dumosa 18.1 Oosed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral,
coastal scrub.
Hazotdia orcuttU FC ST 18.1 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Linonthvs orcuttH 18.3 O,aparral.
Chorlzonthe orc.uttlano FE SE 18.1 Coastal scrub, chaparra1, dosed,cone
coniferous forest,
Ericamerio polmeri ssp. 2.2 Coastal scrub, chaparral.
polmeri
Tetrococc.us dlolcus 18.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub.
Navarretio prostroto 18.1 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools.
Arctostophytos 18.1 Chaparral.
rafnbowensls
Lepidium virginicum var. 18.2 Chaparral, coastal SCl'ub.
tobinsonll
California macrophylla 18.1 Osmontane woodland, valley and foothill
grassland.
Fetococtus vitldescens 2.1 Olapparal, 0legan coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland.
Ambrosia chenopodU{o/ia 2.1 Coastal scrub mostly associated with
maritime succulent scrub.
Eryngium orlstulotum var. FE SE 18.l Vernal pools, coastal scrub, valley and
porlshl/ foothill grassland.
Iva hoyesiano 2.2 Marshes and swamps, playas.
Artemisio po/meri 4.2 Riparian, wetland, adjacent uplands.
Aco,uhomintho llid/o/io FT SE 18.1 Chaparral, coastal se:rub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.
Centromodio pvngens ssp. 18.1 Valley and foothill gra.ssland, chenopod
laevis strub, meadows, playas, riparian woodland.
Opuntlo collfornlco var. 18.1 Chaparral, ooastal scrub,
colifornico
CMWD PhOse Ill Recycled Woler PrOjeCls lS/MND
PogeS-3
sep1embe< 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Plant Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within
Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State CNPS
Common Name Scientific Name Status111 Status'21 UstPI General Habitat Associations
southern tarplant Centromodio porryi ssp. 18.1 Marshes and swamps (margins}, valley and
oustrolis foothill grassland.
Southwestern spiny rush ltmcus ocutvs var. 4.2 Riparian, wetlands, vernal pools.
feopoldil
summer hoity Comarostophyiis 18.2 Chapan·al.
div~tsifo/ia ssp.
divetsifolio
variegated dudleya Dudfeyo voriegoto 18.2 Chaparral, C()jStal scrub, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothlll grassland,
wart-stemmed ceanothus Ceanothus verrucosus 2.2 Chaparral.
Western dicondra Dichondra occidentolis 4.2 Coastal sage savb.
willowy monardella Monardello viminea FE SE 18.1 Coastal scrub/alluvlal ephemeral washes
with adjacent coastal scrub, chaparral, or
sycamore woodland,
fl) ~· DI
Federal Status-FE = Federally Endangered; FT= f".ederally Threatened; FC = Candidate for federal listing; FD = Delisted
State Status-SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened
Q:!ei.-1A a Plants pre.sumed extirM;t in California; 18 • Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in Catrfomia and elsewhere;
2 s Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common el.sewhere; 3 = Plants in need of more
information; 4 = Plants of limited distribution. x.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened or
high degree and immediacy of threat). x.2 = Fair1y endangered in California (2(}.8004 of occurrences threatened).
x.3 = Not very endangered In Callfomla (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
Source: COFG 2012; CNPS 2012; Consortium 2010; Oty of ca~sbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et, al,1998
ATKINS CMWO PhOse III Recyeled Woter Project, IS/MND
Poge&-4
september 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildlife Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
common Name
INVERTEBRATES
Crustaceans
Riverside fairy shrimp
San Oiego fairy shrimp
Insects
Hermes copper butterfly
Harbison's dun skipper
Monarch butterfly
AMPHIBIANS
Arroyo toad
Coast Range newt
Western spadefoot
REPTILES
Coast (San Diego) horned
lizard
Coast patch-nosed snake
Coastal western whiptail
Coronado skink
Northern red-diamond
rattlesnake
o,ange--throated whiptall
Rosy boa
San Diego ringneck snake
ATKINS
Federal State
Scientific Name Status<tJ Status()) General Habitat Associations
Streptocephofus woottonT FE Found In areas of tectonic swales/earth slump basins
fn grassland and coastal sage saub habitats,
8tonchinecto FE Vemal pools.
sandiegonensis
Lyroeno hermes found in southern mixed chaparral and coastal sage
scrub at western edge of Laguna mountains.
Euphyes vestries horblsonl Riparian woodland, riparian scrub, oak woodland.
Danaus plexippus Roosts located in wind~protected tree groves, such a.s
eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and cypress trees where
nectar and water sources are availsible.
Bufo cofJjorntcus FE SSC Semi-arid regions near washes, rivers, or Intermittent
streams, includlng valley-foothill and desert riparian
areas and desert washes.
Toricho toroso torqsq SSC Uve.s in terrestrial habitats and will migrate over 1
km to breed in ponds, reservoirs, coastal drainages,
or slow moving streams.
S~o hommondii SSC Occurs primarily in ponds located i.n grassland
habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill
hardwood woodlands.
Phrynosomo coronotum SSC Inhabits coastal sage scrub and chaparral In arid and
(blalnvlllil populadon) semi-arid climate conditions.
Sofvodora hexo/epjs SSC Brushy or shrubby vegetation in coastal southern
virgulteo t:alifomia.
AspldosceUs tigris found In deserts and semiarid areas with sparse
ste/negerl vegetation and open areas and i.n woodland and
riparian areas.
Evmeces skiltonionus SSC Found in grassland, chaparral, pinyon-juniper and
interporietolls Juniper sage woodland, and plne--oak and pine
forests.
Crotalus ruber ruber SSC Found in chaparral, woodland, grassland, and desert
areas from coastal San Diego County to the eastern
slopes of the mountains.
Aspldoscells hyperythro SSC Inhabits low-elevation coastal scrub, chapattal, and
valley-foothill hardwood habitats.
Chorino trivirgoto Found in desert and chaparral habitats from the
coast to the Mojave. Prefers moderate to dense
vegetation and rocky cover.
Diodophis punctotus Found in open, fairty rocky areas and in moist areas
slmHis near intermittent streams.
CMWD Phase III Recycled Waler Projec1s IS/MND
Page B-5
Seplember 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
SENSITTVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status WlldlWe Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
Silve,y legless lizard
Southwestern pond turtle
Two--striped garter Sflake
BIROS
American peregrine
falcon
Bank swallow
Belding's savannah
sparrow
Bell's sage sparrow
Burrowing owl
California homed lark
Coastal cactus wren
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Cooper's hawk
Ooubie.-ctested
cormorant
Ferrugjnous hawk
Goklen eagle
Grasshopper sparrow
Large-billed savannah
sparrow
Least Bell's vireo
Least bittern
ATKINS
Federal State
Sdentlflc Name Status111 Status!?> General Habitat Associations
Annie/lo pulchra pulchro SSC Occurs in sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes,
chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy
washes, and stream terraces with sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks, where soil Is moist.
Actinemys mormoroto SSC Inhabits permanent or nearty permanent bodies of
pa/Iida water in many habitat types below 6,000 feet.
Thomnoph/s hammond/1 SSC Found in or near permanent fresh water and often
along streams with rocky beds and riparian growth.
Folco peregrir,us onotum FD SE Found near wetlands, lakes, rtvers, or other water or
on cliffs, banks, dunes, or mounds.
Rlpor/a rlparla ST Nests prlmarity In riparian and other lowland habitats
west of the desert.
Posserculus SE Inhabits coastal salt marshes.
sondwichensis beldingi
Amphl,plza bell/ be/II WL Nests Jn chaparral dominated by fairty dense stands
of chamise. Found in coastal sage sctub in south of
range.
Athene cuniwlario SSC Open, dry annual, or perennial grasslands, deserts
and scl'\lblands characteri:ed by low-growing
vegetation.
Ettmaphlla olpt.Sttls actia WL Short-gtass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain me.adows,
open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali
flats.
campy/o,hynchu, SSC Coastal sage scrub with tall Oput'ltio cactus fol'
btunneicopiflus nesting and roosting.
sandiegensis
Polloptila califomico FT SSC low, coastal sage scrub 1n arid washes, on mesas,
coli/ornico and on slopes.
Acdpitet ccopetil WL Open, intetrupted, or marginal type woodland. Nest
sites mainly found in riparian growths of deciduous
trees in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains.
Phafocrocorox ourltus WL Found on coastal cliffs, offshore i.slands, and along
lake matgins in the interior' of the State.
Buteo regolis WL Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrob, low
foothills, and fringes of plnyon-junlper habitats.
Aqullo chty5a~tos FD SE, SFP Rolling foothills, mountain ateas, sage-juniper flats,
and desert.
Ammodromvs SSC Favors native grasslands with a mix of grasses, forbs,
5ovannarum and scattered shrubs.
Posserculus SSC Salt mar$h.
sondwichensis rostrotus
Vireo be/Ill pus/llu, FE SE Summer resident of southetn t.allfornla In low
ripatlan In vicinity of wate, or in dry river bottoms;
below 2000 ft.
lxobrychus exiHs SSC Found in marshlands and borders of ponds and
reseivoirs which provide ample cover.
CMWO PhOS& Ill R&eyeled Wotet PrOjeets 1$/MNO
PogeB-6
sep 1ember 19. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status Wildllte Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
within Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Common Name
Ught~footed dapper ,au
Loggerhead shrike
Long-eared owl
Northern l\arrier
Osprey
Prairie falcon
Southern ~lifornia
rufous-aowned s~rrow
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Trtcolored blackbird
Western snowy plover
White-faced Ibis
White•tailed kite
Yellow watbler
Yellow•breasted chat
MAMMALS
Ametican badger
Hoary bat
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mo-use
Pacific pocket mouse
Pallid bat
ATKINS
Federal State
Scientific Name Status'lJ Status•~ General Habitat Associations
Roi/us Jongirosttis levipes FE SE Sal marsh.
Lanius ludovidanus SSC Broken woodlands, savannah, pinyol\-juniper, joshua
tree, and riparian woodlands, desert oasis', scrub
and washes.
AslOOtU$ SSC Riparian bottomlands with tall wlllows, cottonwoods,
or coast live oaks adjacent to open land with ample
prey.
Orcus cyoneus SSC Coastal Silt and fresll-water marsh. Nest and forage
in grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to
mountain marshes.
Pondion hofioetus WL Ocean shore, bays, fresh•water lakes, and larger
streams.
Falco m~x.lconu.s WL Inhabits dry, open terrain. either level or hilty.
Aimophilo rvficeps WL Found in coastal sage scrub and sparse mixed
conescens chaparral.
Empidonox ttoillii extimus FE SE Riparian woodlands.
Agelolus tricolor SSC Requires open water, protected nesting substrate,
;md foraging area with available insect prey.
Chorodrius ofexondtinus FT SSC Sandy beaches. salt pond levees, and shotes of large
nivosus alkali lakes.
P/egodfs chlhf WL Shallow fresh-water marsh.
£/anus leucurus SFP Rolling foothills ar\d valley margins with scattered
oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to
deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging.
Oer,drolco pettchlo SSC Prefers riparian plant associations such as wlllows,
brewsteri cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores, and alders for
nesting and fotaging. Also, found in montane
shrubbery in open conifer forests.
Jeter/a vfrens SSC Summer resident that Inhabits riparian thickets of
wutow and other brushy tangles near watercourses.
Toxldea taxus SSC Mo.st abundant In drier open stages of most shrub,
forest, and hetbaceoos habitats, with Mable soils.
tos.iurvs dnereus Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access
to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges
for (eedlng. Roosts In dense fol~ge of medium to
large trees.
Chaetodipus fa/lax fa/lax SSC Found in coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, and
sagebtush.
Perognathus FE SSC Found within 4 km of the coast on fine-grained sandy
/onglmembrls pociflcus substrates In coastal sage scrub. coastal strand, and
river alluvium.
Antrozous pallid11s SSC Found in deserts, gra$$lands, shrubla:nds, woodlands,
and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting.
CMWO Phase 111 Recycled Water Projects IS/MNO
Pa9e 8-7
Seplembe< 19, 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
SENSlTIVE 810LOGICAl RESOURCES TABLES
Special Status WildlHe Species Reported or Potentially Occurring
wtthln Carlsbad and CMWD Service Area
Federal State
Common Name Scientific Name Status<1J Status12> General Habitat Ass.odatfons
San Diego black-tailed Lepus cofifomicus SSC Found in coastal sa,ge scrub with Intermediate
Jackrabbit bennettii canopy stages of shrub habitats and open shrub/
herbaceous and tree/ herbaceous edges.
San Diego desert woodrat Neotomo lepldo SSC Moderate to dense canopies of coastal scrub.
lntermedlo Abundant in rock outaops, rocky diffs, and slopes.
Townsend's big•eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC Found in moist coastal forest to semi-desert
scrubland.s, near riparian areas and wetlands,
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC Found in many open and semi-arid to arid habitats,
colifotnicus including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal
scrub, grasslands, and chaparral.
Western red bat Losiuros blossevillii SSC Prefers ,iparian a,eas dominated by cottonwoods,
oaks, sycamores, and walnuts.
Westem small-foot~ Myotis ciliolobrum Found in a wide range of habitats nea, watet,
myotis including arid wooded, brushy uplands, and open
stands In forests and woodlands. Seeks cover In
caves, buildings, mines and crevices
Western yellow bat Losluros xonthirtus SSC Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian,
desert washes, and palm oasis habitats.
Yuma myotjs MyoOs yumortensis Optimal habitats a,e open forests and woodlands
with sources of water over which to feed.
Southem mule deer Odocoilt!us hemionus Variety of habitau over a broad range.
ut Federal Status-FE = Federally Endangered; FT= Federally Th,eatened; FC = Candidate for fede,al listing; FD = Oelisted
C2I State Status-SE= State Endangered; ST= State Th,eatened; SFP = State Fully Protected; SSC = State Species of Special
Concern; WL = State Watch Ust
Source: C0FG 2012; City of Carlsbad 2004; AMEC et. al. 2003; Ogden et. al. 1998
ATKINS CMWD PhOse m Recycled wow PrOjects IS/MND
Poge 8-8
September 19. 2012
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Attachment B
Biological Resources Study Addendum
July 17, 2018 Item #4
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El C.jon Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 lef
619.462.0552 fax
www.hollxopl.00rn
March 30, 2018
Lindsey Stephenson, P.E., Senior Engineer
City of Carlsbad Public Works
5950 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
HELIX
Environmental Planning
KJC-27
Subject: Addendum Report to the Biological Resources Study and Adopted IS/MND findings for
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Dear Ms. Stephenson:
This document is an update to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Adopted IS/MND)
EIA 12-02, dated November 14, 2012(SCH No. 2012091049) findings for the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD) Phase Ill Recycled Water Project (Approved Project) located in the City of Carlsbad
(city), San Diego County, California. The IS/MND was adopted by the Board of Directors of the CMWD on
November 27, 2012. A focused biological resources study was prepared May 15, 2013 by HELIX
Environmental Planning, Inc. {HELIX), subsequent to the adoption of the IS/MNO (HELIX 2013). The
biological resources study provided specific information necessary in fulfilling State Water Resources
Control Board {SWRCB) CEQA-Plus requirements and CMWD's Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Program (SRF Program) application, which requires demonstration of project conformance with federal
policy pertaining to biological resources.
As addressed in t he Adopted IS/MND, the Approved Project components have been designed to be
restricted entirely within existing disturbed and developed road and utility right-of-way (ROW) areas,
access roads, and previously graded areas that are surrounded by existing transportation, residential,
and other mixed-use developments. The IS/MNO determined that the areas being considered for
construction of Approved Project components do not support high quality biological resources, and the
Approved Project would not result in any direct impacts on sensitive biological resources, including
those resources protected under federal policy. However, several of the Approved Project components
were determined to occur adjacent to undeveloped areas characterized by native habitat that could
support special-status w ildlife species, sensit ive natural communities, and wetlands, and potential
indirect impacts to these resources (e.g., night lighting, construction noise and vibration, runoff, and
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel) were determined to occur during
construction. Potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant t hrough mitigation measures
Bio-lA through Bio-lF as identified in the IS/MND and focused biological resources study.
July 17, 2018 Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 2 of 16
This update addresses proposed modifications to t he Approved Project, which include multiple recycled
water pipeline extensions in the nonheastern ponion of t he city and a storage tank relocation in the
central pan of the city, near Black Rail Road. The proposed modifications include:
• Two extensions would be added to the Segment 5 pipelines; one extension would extend the
pipeline non h on Tamarack Avenue; the other extension would branch off the Marron Road
pipeline nonh on Monroe Street. In addition, minor meter location refinements would be
included (Figure 1).
• An extension to the Segment 7 pipeline would be added on Tamarack Avenue that would
connect a gap in the previously proposed Segment 7 pipelines (Figure 1).
• New potable water pipelines, ranging in size from 6-inches to 8-inches in diameter, would be
installed in the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (Figure l; hereafter referred
to as Palisades potable water pipelines and Flower Fields potable water pipelines). The pipelines
would be installed parallel to the exist ing potable water pipelines, which would be abandoned in
place. These pipelines are located in the same vicinity as ponions of the previously proposed
Segment 5 alignments.
• The 1.5-million gallon (MG} storage tank is proposed to be located on the vacant, pre-graded
pad southeast of the existing 8.5 MG storage tank on the D Tank site, near Black Rail Road (see
Figure 2, Storage Tank Relocation). The tank would be connected to the existing pipeline
adjacent to the site. This location is approximately 150 feet east of the previously proposed tank
location. The proposed storage tank would have also have security lighting.
The following analysis addresses CEQA and federal policy conformance and updates the analysis w it hin
the prior Adopted 1$/MND as well as the 2013 biological resources letter repon .
METHODS
Prior to conducting the general biological survey, HELIX reviewed the biological resources study for the
Approved Project (HELIX 2013), performed an updated search of the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB; 2017), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS} Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
Species Status list (USFWS 2017a}, USFWS Critical Habitat Ponal (USFWS 2017b}, and USFWS National
Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2017c} database applications to obtain information regarding federally-
protected resources known to occur within the vicinity of the study area. Other primary resources
consulted for the study included the CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project IS/MND (Atkins 2012a},
City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and City of Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and Recycled
Water Master Plans EIR (Atkins 2012b}, Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (City of Carlsbad 1996), and City
of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (City of Carlsbad 2004).
HELIX biologist Amy Mattson conducted a general biological survey on October 3, 2017, between the
hours of 10:15 AM and 11:45 AM. The survey covered the two Segment 5 pipeline extensions and t he
storage tank location to obtain 100 percent visual coverage and verify existing conditions on and in the
immediate vicinity (within approximately 100 feet) of each component. The MND prepared for the
project did not identify direct or indirect biological impacts associated with Segment 7, and this area was
not re-surveyed. From review of aerial imagery, general biological surveys of the potable water pipeline
HELIX ~Pl,Jmi(ng
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 3 of 16
alignments were detenmined to not be warranted due to their alignment parallel to existing pipelines in
existing roads.
The survey focused on inventorying existing vegetation communities; qualifying habitat suitability and
potential for occurrence of federally-listed species protected under the Endangered Species Act;
identifying wetlands and other waters of the U.S. protected under the Clean Water Act; identifying
potential nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; identifying
coastal resources subject to Coastal Zone Management Act policy; and, confinming the absence of
Essential Fish Habitat. The entire survey area was surveyed on foot with the aid of binoculars and all
observed or detected plant and animal species were recorded in field notes. Animal identifications were
made in the field by visual observation or detection of calls, bu rrows, tracks, scat, and other animal sign.
All plant identifications were made in the field.
Nomenclature used in this report follows t he same conventions as specified in the 2013 biological
resources study.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CONFORMANCE
ISSUE 1: Special-Status Species
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitot modifications, on
ony species identified os a condidote, sensitive, or special stotus species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. Similar to the Phase Ill sites analyzed in the Adopted
IS/MND, the proposed modifications occur entirely within exi.sting development (i.e., relocation of the
storage tank to within an enclosed reclaimed water tank facility) or in developed roads surrounded by
existing transportation, residential, and other mixed-use developments. The areas surrounding t he new
extensions are regularly used by vehicles and pedestrians, which present ongoing adverse direct and
indirect effects on state-and federally-listed species associated w ith regular roadway use,
encroachment into undeveloped areas, nighttime lighting, and high noise levels. These ongoing effects
degrade the existing habitat and deter state-and federally-listed species from using the area. In
addition, most of the sites are constrained in all directions by existing developments, thereby reducing
the likelihood for state-and federally-listed species to disperse or migrate over the sites and immediate
vicinity. The relatively small amount of undeveloped land t hat remains in proximity to some of the sites
has been reduced to fragmented and low-quality stands of habitat, which are disconnected and isolated
from larger habitat blocks in the local and regional area. Most of these off-site stands do not offer t he
space and resources required by the state-and federally-listed species known to occur in the region.
Given these factors, state-and federally-listed species would not be expected to occur on or in the
immed iate vicinity of proposed modifications.
Further discussion is provided below regarding potential effects of the proposed modifications on state-
and federally-listed species.
Item #4
letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Stote-ond Federolly-Listed Plont Species
Page4of16
None of the 54 special-status plant species noted in the Adopted IS/MNO have been reported as
occupying habitat specifically located w ithin the Segment 5 extensions, or within the storage tank
location. No listed plant species were observed during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey.
The proposed modifications lack suitable habitat for listed plant species and are characterized by paved
asphalt within existing road ROW, disturbed bare earth, or landscaped hillsides associated with
previously graded areas. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal
(weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. No listed plant species would be expected to occur on
or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modification sites given the high level of disturbance and
overall unsuitability of the existing soils, vegetation associations, and hydrology. Therefore, no direct or
indirect effects on state-and federally-listed plant species are anticipated to occur as a result of
proposed modifications.
Stote-ond Federally-Listed Animal Species
None of the 63 listed animal species noted In the Adopted IS/MNO have been reported as occupying
habitat specifically located within the proposed modification sites. No listed animal species were
observed or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers, tracks, scat, etc.) during the
October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Therefore, none of the 63 listed animal species have the
potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves, and no direct effects would occur
as a result of the proposed modifications.
Special-status wildlife species are also not expected to occur along most of the project modifications.
Most of the areas surrounding the proposed modifications are developed and/or subject to ·
anthropogenic disturbance.s, and the relatively small amount of undeveloped land that remains in
proximity to some of these areas has been reduced to small, fragmented, and low-quality stands, which
are disconnected and isolated from habitat in the local and regional area. Undeveloped land occurs to
the north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension, west of the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue
extension (coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland), and west of the Segment 7 extension.
The Segment 5 Monroe Street extension would be constructed within an existing developed road
between a shopping center and its parking lot; however, Buena Vista Creek occurs to the north of the
proposed modification. The Segment S Tamarack Avenue extension would also be located within an
existing developed road; however, coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland is present on the slope west
ofTamarack Avenue. Disturbed habitat and patches of eucalyptus woodland are next to the roadway
along Segment 7. The Flower Fields potable water pipelines would be constructed within an existing
multi-family residential apartment complex, buffered by residences from adjacent land uses; landscaped
t rees are present with the complex. The Palisades potable water pipelines would be constructed w it hin
an existing single-family residential neighborhood, buffered by residences from adjacent land uses;
landscaped trees are present with the neighborhood. The storage tank is proposed within an existing
reclaimed water tank facility (the D Tank facility). The area proposed for the storage tank is a graded
pad, characterized by sparse, primarily horticultural vegetation. Some large trees, including eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus sp.), are present in landscaped areas w ithin the facility. Trees are also present by the new
sections of Segment 5. Within all of these areas, no trees, shrubs, or sensitive habitat would be directly
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 5 of 16
disturbed by these modifications, except for a small portion of ornamental landscaped vegetation at t he
Palisades potable water pipelines.
Potential indirect effects on state-and federally-listed animal species from construction of the proposed
modifications could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition,
construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of
construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may
support state-and federally-Ii.sled animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of
construction; however, CMWO has committed to daytime construction hours, and construction of the
proposed modifications would not require the use of nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have
security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into sensitive biological
areas. Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant.
Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas
could be potentially adverse and significant to state-and federally-listed species if construction would
occur during the breeding season and if the species would be nesting in the immediate vicinity of
construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio•lA through Bio-lF from the 2012 IS/MND below would
reduce potentially adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting state-and federally-listed species
to less than significant levels. With the implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications
would not likely adversely affect nesting state-listed species, there would be less than significant impact
with mitigation, and t he proposed modifications would be in conformance with CEQA.
Mitigation
The following measures taken from the Adopted IS/MND would mitigate potential adverse effects and
significant impacts on state-and federally-listed species to less than significant levels.
Bio-lA Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent impacts to nesting birds, including
raptors, the CMWD shall enforce the following:
Prior to construction activities requiring the removal, pruning, or damage of any trees,
shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.) during general breeding
seasons, that being from January 15 to September 15, the city shall retain a qualified
biologist to perform a pre-construction survey to determine if there are any active nests
within 500 feet of the areas planned for construction. The surveys shall take place no more
than 30 days prior to the start of construction for a particular project component.
If any active raptor nests are located on or within SOO 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 const ruction activities. No construction
activities shall occur until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nests are no
longer active and all nestlings have fledged the nest or until the end of the general breeding
season, whichever occurs later. A qualified biologist shall confirm, in writing, that no
disturbance to active nests or nesting activities would occur as a result of construction
HELIX Ettd-onmcrn1t ~
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 6of 16
Bio-18
Bio-lC
Bio-1D
activities. Documentation from a qualified biologist consistent with these requirements shall
be submitted to the city Planner for review and approval. A note to this effect shall be
placed on the construction plans.
Pre-Construction Biological Resource Surveys. Prior to construction of the storage tank and
the new extensions on Segment 5 and 7, that will occur within disturbed or developed land,
but are sited immediately adjacent to an undeveloped open space area (i.e., an area
supporting naturalized habitat, sensitive habitat, and/or habitat potentially suitable for
special status species) or trees, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a pre-
construction survey to verify existing biological resources adjacent to the project
construction areas. The surveys shall take place no more than 30 days prior to the start of
construction for a particular project component. The CMWD shall provide the biologist with
a copy of the project plans that clearly depict the construction work limits, including
construction staging and storage areas, in order to determine which specific portion(s) of
the project will require inspection of adjacent open space areas during the pre-construction
survey. At minimum, the biologist shall perform a visual inspection of the adjacent open
space area in order to characterize the existing habitat types and determine the likelihood
for special status species to occur, including the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptilo
colifornico colifornico), migratory songbirds, and other bird species with the potential to
breed in the area. The pre-construction survey results shall be submitted to the CMWD prior
to construction in order to verify the need for additional construction measures proposed
within Bio-lC through Bio-lF.
Orange Construction Fencing. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation
measure Bio•lB that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat
areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a
qualified biologist to supervise the installation of temporary orange construction fencing,
which clearly delineates the edge of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the
edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing
shall be installed prior to construction, and maintained for the duration of construction
activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, all work shall cease until
the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified. Temporary orange fencing shall
be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this
measure shall be verified by the city Planner prior to and concurrent with construction.
Construction-Related Noise. Construction noise created during the general breeding season
(January 15 to September 15) that could affect the breeding of the coastal california
gnatcatcher, migratory songbirds, and other bird species associated with adjacent
undeveloped areas shall be avoided. No loud construction noise (exceeding 60 dBA hourly
average, adjusted for ambient noise levels, at the nesting site) may take place within
500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 through
September 15). If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure Bio•lB
that the project could result in construction-related noise impacts to breeding birds during
the general breeding season, the CMWD shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor the
construction operations. The biological monitor shall be present to monitor construction
HELIX ---
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 7 of 16
activities t hat 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-lE Construction Staging Areas. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation
measure Bio-1B that the project would occur immed iately adjacent to sensitive habitat
areas and/or habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall design
final project construction staging areas such that no staging areas shall be located within
sensitive habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval by the city
Planning & Engineering Divisions prior to mobilizations and staging of equipment outside of
the project boundaries.
Bio-lf Contractor Training. If it is confirmed through the implementation of mitigation measure
Bio-18 that the project would occur immediately adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and/or
habitat potentially suitable for special status species, the CMWD shall retain a qualified
biologist to attend pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive
resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements.
ISSUE 2: Sensitive Natural Communities
Would the project hove o substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in loco/ or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Less t han Significant Impact with Mitigation. Sensitive natural communit ies have been reported at
locations in the vicinity of the proposed modifications. Wetland habitats associated wit h Buena Vista
Creek are present to the north of the Segment S Monroe Street extension. Coastal sage scrub-
eucalyptus woodland is present west of the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension and to the east and
west of Segment 7. None of these communities are located within the footprints of the individual
project components. The potable water pipelines are not located adjacent to sensitive natural
communities. As discussed in CEOA Issue 1, all of the proposed modifications are located within existing
development (i.e., relocation of the storage tank site to within an enclosed reclaimed water tank facility)
or in developed roads. The limited vegetation that exists is comprised primarily of non-native ruderal
(weedy) and ornamental landscape plant species. Therefore, sensitive natural communities are
considered to be absent from the proposed modification sites and no direct impacts would occur.
Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad located within the reclaimed water
tank facility. Cracked soils and three plant species that typically occupy ponded areas were observed,
none of which i.s considered an indicator species for vernal pools {United States Army Corps of Engineers
[USACE] 1997). These were grass poly (Lythrum hyssopifolium}, sand-spurrey (Spergulorio sp.), and toad
rush (Juncus bufonius]. The bodies of seed shrimp also were noted in this area. Compaction of the pad
and a small earthen berm around the edge of this pad are likely responsible for the observed ponding.
Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this area would not be considered federally
jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development pad, the absence of vernal pool
indicators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential for any listed species, this feature
HELIX 6+1&aa.JE1UI narnt,o
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page8 of 16
is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter-Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the
City of Carlsbad.
Construction activities associated with project modifications in t he Segment 5 and 7 extensions could
result in potential runoff and inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into
sensitive natural communities adjacent to construction zones. These potential indirect impacts could
result in degradation or loss of off-site habitat and would be considered significant. As the potable water
pipelines are not located adjacent to sensitive natural communities, no indirect impacts from runoff and
pollutants would occur.
Potential indirect impacts pertaining to runoff and pollutants generated from construction activities
adjacent to undeveloped areas for the Segment 5 and 7 extensions would be controlled and reduced to
less than significant levels through compliance with the proposed features discussed in Section 9 of the
Adopted IS/MND, such as implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan {SWPPP), and
compliance with other applicable regulations. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-lB
through Bio-l F would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into
off-site sensitive habitats and mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, potential
impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be reduced to less than
significant levels through compliance with applicable water quality standards discussed in Section 9 of
the Adopted IS/MND and implementat ion of Mitigation Measures Bio-1B through Bio-l F.
ISSUE 3: Wetlands
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the federal CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.} through
direct removal,filling, hydrologicol interruption or other means?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No portions of the proposed modification boundaries
contain any areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a permit from USACE. The
proposed modifications would be constructed entirely within upland areas that do not support wet lands
or ot her waters of the U.S. subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of USACE. Therefore, no direct effects to
federally-protected wetlands or other waters of the U.S. would occur.
As discussed in CEQA Issue 2, evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad
located within the reclaimed water tank facility. Because of its isolation from waters of the U.S., this
area would not be considered federally jurisdictional. Because of its location on a graded development
pad, the absence of vernal pool indicators observed during the dry season, and the very low potential
for any listed species, this feature is not likely to be considered state jurisdictional under the Porter-
Cologne Act, or jurisdictional by the City of Carlsbad.
The new pipeline sections analyzed in this study wil l be constructed entirely within existing roads
designed with curb, gutter, and storm drain features to accommodate stormwater. Therefore, runoff
from these would enter into existing storm drain facilities, which may discharge into nearby wetlands.
For example, the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension is located within a shopping center built just east
of Buena Vista Lagoon and south of Buena Vista Creek. The storage tank would be constructed on a
graded development pad, which has a small berm at the downslope edge to restrict water runoff.
Potential indirect effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may occur if runoff from
HELIX --
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 9 of 16
construction work areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that
discharge into downstream wetland areas.
Potential runoff and increase in poll utants associated with construction activities adjacent to
undeveloped areas would be controlled and reduced through implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and other protective measures incorporated into the project as mandatory
requirements for regulatory compliance. These include acquisition of a Storm Water General Permit and
General Linear Utility Permit, in addition to compliance with local development standards, including the
preparation of SWPPPs and application of appropriate BMPs.
Construction activit ies would comply with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), California's Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System {NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES program,
the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated w ith
Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the
RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Discharge Requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems {MS4s) under Order No. R9-2007-0001, NPDES No. CAS0108758, Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff from the MS4s Draining the Watersheds of the County of
San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San
Diego County Regional Airport Authority {MS4 permit). Proposed modifications not falling within the
coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance with t he implementing
ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water discharge controls
required under the MS4 permit.
For proposed modifications covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in
ground disturbance of greater than one acre), the CMWD would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered
under the terms and conditions of the General Permit, prepare a SWPPP prescribing BMPs, monitoring,
inspection, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with the General Permit provisions, in order
to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants in
surface water runoff. The implementing ordinances of the cities and county under the MS4 permit
generally require that storm water control measures of a similar nature be undertaken to ensure their
compliance under the permit.
BMPs {e.g., berms, straw waddles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control
measures intended to control the rate of discharge and to prevent pollutants from entering storm water
runoff, and may include measures to minimize project disturbance, protect slopes, reduce erosion, and
limit or prevent various pollutants from entering surface water runoff, such as the following:
• Minimizing disturbed areas. Clearing of land is limited to t hat which will be actively under
construction in t he 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 w henever
active construction is not occurring on a portion of the site, and permanent stabilization is
provided by finish grading and permanent landscaping.
HELIX ---
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page lOof 16
• Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the approved grading plan area, disturbance of
natural channels is avoided, slopes and crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by
the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels.
• Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through
the proposed modifications and is kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents.
• Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site
are detained (e.g., siltation basins).
Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18, Bio-lC, Bio-lE, and Bio-lF would prevent
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and
mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the incorporation of the above-
referenced protective measures, the project would not result in any adverse effects on federally-
protected wetlands and would be in conformance with CEQA and the CWA.
ISSUE 4: Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites
Would the project interfere substontiolly with the movement of ony native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory corridors, or impede the use of native
wlldlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant. As discussed in the Adopted IS/MND, the biological resou rces analysis included a
thorough review of information pertaining to the Carlsbad HMP and Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program (MHCP), including regional corridors and habitat linkages. No known wildlife corridors, linkages,
or nursery sites occur within or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. All of the sites
are characterized by paved asphalt within existing road ROW, or previously graded areas.
The sites do not contain any resources that would cont ribute 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 w ildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
ISSUE 5: Local Policies and Ordinances
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinonces protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. None of the proposed modifications that occur within the boundaries of the coastal zone
would impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area or other protected resou rces, as identified within
the approved Carlsbad local Coastal Program; therefore, the project would not conflict with the
adopted Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of
the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance and impacts would be less than significant.
Projects located within Carlsbad are subject to the requirements of the Carlsbad HMP and provisions of
HELIX ~t.U~
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 11 of 16
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, including the Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements
(HPMR) Ordinance. The HPMR requires all development to comply with the Carlsbad HMP as well as the
Implementing Agreement, the MHCP, the Natural Communities Conservation Plan and lO(a)(l)(B)
permit conditions. Construction of the project would not be permitted to occur until all processing and
permitting requirements of the HPMR Ordinance are fulfilled.
ISSUE 6: Adopted Conservation Plans
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved loco/, regional, or stote hobitot conservation plan?
No Impact. As evaluated in CEQA Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4, several project components could result in
potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitat that are addressed within the city's HMP. The
CMWD is required to comply with the city's HMP and provisions of t he City of carlsbad Municipal Code,
including the HPMR Ordinance. Projects requiring approvals or permitting (e.g., HMP Permit) from the
City of Carlsbad Planning Division are required to incorporate project-level avoidance and minimization
measures into t he project description to be consistent with the conditions of the city's HMP. In addition,
projects are required to implement project-specific procedures, protocols, and mitigation measures
described in the city's HMP if sensitive species and habitat could be adversely affected by the project.
Avoidance measures are proposed to ensure that potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and
habitats are avoided or mitigated to less than significant levels. As required, potential impacts on
sensitive species and habitats will be avoided or mitigated consistent with the city's HMP requirements.
Implementation of the Phase Ill project, including the proposed modifications, would therefore not
conflict wit h the adopted city's HMP and no impacts would occur.
FEDERAL CONFORMANCE
ISSUE 1: Federal Endangered Species Act, Section 7
Does the project involve ony direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth
inducement that may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat
that are known, or have a potential, to occur on-site, in the surrounding areo, or in the service area?
For the same reasons discussed in CEQA Issue 1, the proposed modifications do not directly impact
federally-listed species, and are not likely to result in indirect impacts to these species. Further, none of
the proposed modifications occur within undeveloped areas supporting naturalized habitat and
designated by the USFWS as Critical Habitat for federally-listed species. None of the sites support the
primary constituent elements (PCEs) of USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for any federally-listed
species. Therefore, the proposed modifications will have no effect on Critical Habitat. Further discussion
is provided below regarding potential effects of the proposed modifications on federally-listed species.
Federally-Listed Pion! Species
None of the 12 listed plant species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013) have been
reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the Segment S extensions, or within the storage
tank location. No listed plant species were observed during the October 3, 2017 general biological
survey. As discussed in CEQA Issue 1, listed plant species are not likely to occur in or near the proposed
HELIX ~.,, l'fdll!W\O
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 12 of 16
modifications. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects on federally-listed plant species are anticipated to
occur as a result of proposed modifications.
Federally-Listed Animal Species
None of the nine listed animal species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013) have been
reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the proposed modification sites. No listed
animal species were observed or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers, tracks,
scat, etc.) during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Therefore, none of the nine listed animal
species have the potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves, and no direct
effects would occur as a result of t he proposed modifications.
However, six of the nine federally-listed species have a potential to occur within off-site habitat located
in the immediate vicinity (i.e., at locations within 100 feet) of the proposed modifications locations, as
follows:
• San Diego fairy shrimp has low potential to occur within the temporarily ponded area located on
t he graded development pad, within 100 feet of the proposed storage tank location.
• Coastal California gnatcatcher has the potential to nest within off-site coastal sage scrub-
eucalypt us woodland, to the west ofTamarack Avenue along t he Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue
extension.
• Least Bell's vireo has the potential to nest w ithin off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista
Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in
the area in 2015 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity
Database 2017).
• Light-footed clapper rail is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) within off-site
wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street
extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in 2007 (California Department of
Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 2017).
• Southwestern willow flycatcher is not likely to nest, but has t he potential to forage (only) as a
temporary migrant within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the
Segment S Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded approximately 2,000 feet
upstream of the area in 1984 (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural
Diversity Database 2017).
• Western snowy plover is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a wintering
resident within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5
Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in 1995, but i.s
presumed extirpated (California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity
Database 2017).
Potential indirect effects on federally-listed animal species from construction of the proposed
modifications could include those resulting from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition,
HELIX
Eori'Oflll!elltal ~
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 13 of 16
construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in inadvertent intrusions of
construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction zones that may
support federally-listed animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction;
however, CMWD has committed to daytime construction hours and construction of the proposed
modifications would not require the use of nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have security
lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into sensit ive biological areas.
Therefore, indirect effects resulting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant.
Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas
could be potentially adverse and significant on federally-listed species only if construction would occur
during the breeding season and if the species would be nesting in the immediate vicinity of construction
activities. As identified above, coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo represent the only
federally-listed species with potential to nest in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications.
Indirect effects on San Diego fairy shrimp could also occur as a result of construction equipment and
personnel entering into sensitive basin habitat. Potentially adverse indirect effects would not be
anticipated to occur to federally-listed species within the potential to forage (only) within adjacent
habitat, such as the light-footed clapper rail, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western snowy plover.
Species with the potential to forage (only) would only be expected to use the adjacent habitat
temporarily and would be able to relocate in.to alternative foraging areas without being harmed.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-lA through Bio-l f , listed above, would reduce potentially
adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting federally-listed species to less than significant levels.
With the implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications would not likely adversely
affect nesting federally-listed species and the project would be in conformance with the ESA.
ISSUE 2: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Essential Fish
Habitat
Does the project involve ony direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such os growth
inducement thot moy adversely affect essential fish habitat?
The new Approved Project components would be constructed within disturbed and/or developed
upland areas that lack marine resources and Essential Fish Habitat regulated under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No Essential Fish Habitat occurs in t he immediate
vicinity of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely
affect Essential Fish Habitat and would be in conformance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
ISSUE 3: Coastal Zone Management Act
Is any portion of the project site located within the coastal zone?
The new storage tank location and the Palisades potable water pipelines are located within the Coastal
Zone. The new pipeline extensions for Segment 5 and 7 and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines
are located outside of the Coastal Zone.
HELIX
E/wkOIWl(!!llaf ~
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 14of 16
Development within the coastal zone boundaries are subject to the Carlsbad local Coastal Program
(LCP), the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance, and the california Coastal Act (CCA) and
would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The city's LCP was approved and certified by
the California Coastal Commission in 1996 and the latest amendment was approved in 2016. The city
acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects within its coastal zone, with a
few exceptions. There are areas of "deferred certification" where the state retains its permitting
authority. All projects in the coastal zone would require review for consistency with the LCP and CCA
prior to issuance of a COP, which would occur once preliminary design drawings were prepared. This
would ensure that infrast ructure projects will be consistent with the LCP; individual components would
require this review on a project-by-project basi.s to ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
The storage tank and potable water pipelines that occur within the Coastal Zone would not adversely
affect or impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or other protected coastal resources
identified within the approved city's LCP. The proposed modifications would not conflict with the city's
LCP, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the
Coastal Zone Management Act.
ISSUE 4: Migratory Bird Treaty Act
WIii the project affect protected migratory birds that ore known, or hove o potential, to occur on•site, in
the surrounding area, or in the service areo?
The proposed modifications would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of developed and
undeveloped areas characterized by trees, shrubs, and man•made structures (e.g., build ings, water
tanks, etc.) that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common and sensitive bird species,
including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Common bird species with the
potential to nest in the vicinity of project components include species such as california towhee
(Me/ozone crissalis), song sparrow (Me/ospizo melodia), black phoebe (Soyornls nigricons), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house finch (Corpodacus mexiconus), Anna's hummingbird (Colypte
onno), American crow (Corvus brochyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zeno/do mocroura), and Bullock's oriole
(lcterus bullocki11, Sensitive bird species with the potential to nest include federally-listed species such as
coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo, in addition to non-listed sensitive species such as
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophilo ruficeps conescens), Bell's sage sparrow
(Amphispizo be/Ii be/11), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineotus) and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii).
Indirect effects could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of
undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest (or nests on man-made structures), such t hat the
disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. These potential adverse effects on nesting birds
and raptors would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-lA identified within CEQA Issue 1 would mitigate this
potential adverse effect to a less than significant level. With the implementation of Mit igation Measure
Bio-lA, the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
HELIX El'lwitOl'lffleflt.lf Pf.l'Vlil'lg
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
Page 15 of 16
ISSUE 5: Protection of Wetlands
Does ony portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be evaluated far wetland
delineation or require a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers?
Please refer to CEQA Issue 3 for a discussion of the proposed modifications and wetlands. With the
incorporation of the protective measures referenced in CEQA Issue 3, the project would not result in any
adverse effects on federally-protected wetlands and would be in conformance w it h the CWA.
ISSUE 6: Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
\ Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river?
None of the proposed modifications are planned on or in the immediate vicinity of areas designated as
Wild and Scenic River. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect any areas
designated as Wild and Scenic River and would be in conformance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Sincerely,
f>t1'rv\wJ4,= -
Amy Mattson
Biologist
Enclosures:
Figure 1: Pipeline Improvements
Figure 2: Storage Tank Relocation
Attachment A Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Status List
HELIX --
Item #4
Letter to Ms. Stephenson
March 30, 2018
REFERENCES
Page 16 of 16
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2017.
RareFind 5. Data accessed October.
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD). 2012a. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH No. 2012091049. Available on-file at the City of
Carlsbad. November.
2012b. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water and
Recycled Water Master Plans Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report. Available on•
file at the City of Carlsbad. SCH No. 2012021006. October.
City of Carlsbad. 2004. Final Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.
Final approval November 2004, including implementing agreement and terms and conditions.
Available at : http:ljwww.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid 149 579.pdf.
1996. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program and 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2010
Amendments. August 14. On-file at the City of Carlsbad and available at
http:ljwww.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/coastal/default.asp.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2017. Update to the Biological Resources Study and IS/M ND
findings for Carlsbad M unicipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. October 13.
2013. Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 15.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Species Lists and Occurrence Information for Multiple
Species within Jurisdiction of t he Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office. Available at:
http:ljwww.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO Species Status List%20.htm. and
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/gis/cfwogis.html.
2017b. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at : http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. February 9.
2017c. National Wetland Inventory, Wetlan'ds Mapper. Available at:
http:ljwww.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. October 2.
Item #4
0
Pipeline Improvements
Figure 1
Item #4
2012 Propcsed T.ank Location
0 150 Feet sourer. Attial Photo (SlnGIS. 2014)
HELIX
lnwonmenltl Pfannfng Storage Tank Re location
Figure 2
Item #4
Attachment A
Updated USFWS Carlsbad Fish and
Wi ldlife Office Species Status List
Ft;OOWJ,. \' USTED. C,\l\1>U>A Te, AND ~SttO T AXA tN THI;'. JURISl>tC'110N Of TI«£ CAIU..S&\O t-1SH ~D Wll.Dtlfi OfF1¢e
1..1$Tl:•-:G
fl!:OltkAL IU:Cl$TER Jtl'.C0V£RY PltIIIR\WP:S U)
Tn.. l.ud Suit ~ DOCS Sc:~ificN••IIO Com-Nam,; ....... Off-Sl•hlt St•~1 ~~ 1r;,:1 °-1'··1=1~1·++++~··1·+"
,t,ANTS • 53 T AXA; c,·wo I.J!AD roR a TAX.-\
IA~Uliflai&i D, ........ AQL ,. IT -• X
l,,~plluap.wiJlifi,w,
(0.,,-~
YV,•,\11) .~. ACPAM ~o ... IH ........... w "~ ·-,c X jd,~.,.,,.,,,._ vv.
~(LonutlMIP, ., _, "' w = "· . , ~ l " -·· O< • --..... Al.MU "' FE .... ,, IC X ...... -· A>mJ rn ,. .m 1flJD IIC X X ~----.~-ln....M•llllnDDII, Al<GLCR =~ ... ,~-,.,. 6C X
(A,_,.,;,,-~ <C = ,. .. , "' ""' 2
i•-"'·-~ .· w !Jl.ll:i
1 ~ mi!k.-ch ASAL FWO "' , --= IC X , -IOft'smilk.-dl ASBR "' ,.. " , ... 2 XX X -,., "'
..... ,~,inmilk• , ASIA -"o .. ..
. --.... = -' X
IA~,,,_~,..,
~ ... ~bi Valle, nnlk• _ .. A"'-ECO FWO Ht ....... r.11 ,.,. 6C X
l,,t,,mplld~ .... ·--·,.at.,""fldl, A$.'IAJ't! -·-S8 fT -. --·-= -· • X IA~~_,,..,_
v.,IUl'a 1111t6 lllllk,...--"·' . ,., i r.-on,i,,iu ASP\'U SE "' 6C X X
,,_,,.. till 411'1tSllll!t-w1$ ASnm ..... S8 FE ';t·"' ~ X X -· ' -1):-CA. '" ~ ,.w ..
""1k• --vat. wii,._Vllkr
~-~ fh'' _,, ., , __
,o.,._..,i, AlCON "' ' X flot:dw,,v--nim blcdat\1 BAVA SE FT : ,., lC X ........ ,·, ScNE FWO >1' FE , • X X X X • ---.... ,. FT ,_ IC X X X X X ..,_ -a PT ., , .. ,, .. • X
.. •Oementfbl_, _.,_ .. = ... """"' -• . ~o• SE FT "· ,.,, " X -.. lil!Al.C--... FW SE FT ,~, .. , IC X -t=-~-....cain-,,._ _, ,. "' ,. -•-1 • X -----Col+'....,~ .-_,.1,,,~ r:,.n•tAM :i-v.·o , .. ~~ ... . ..
~-1~
S8 Ff. """ • X XX • '0 SE FE '""' "' . ' X = ~l!dwparry#vw, IS-~V.UI.,-
,._
~ -M --~'PA•F. '""'' SF. FC H"-••"' " NA X X
r,,r........OU~III
l~t'.\r,1 ~-I -•• l D<CO _.,, SE rr 1 .. ...__,.. , .. ·--IC X --~~ .... DEVAKI -" ,. f1i ''· ··-., ... -" X _......,
w.--·••11 ·-.E -., ,. ... '... . ,.,. -X Iv X ~--' s.MftlM<aic.aMtMaiM .. ~. OOCYO• _, PT ,-,~ OM ·-• X X . .. ~&adili-.
DU<T
__ .,
ST FT lu ..... ,,.. , ... • X N
_,,,-,"',..AWU
" V .. .,. "o FT 114--":-'118 '"" ""' • X
~ ....... ~ -AMAA-.r~• --... .,,, _,,
SB "' .. -·· IC X X X
l&'-'-,o,r _ _. ..... n...lJh't~,.. .... ....,.,.,c FT ... -· ·~· '?2!5 "" -,c X X __ .... __ ...
•••••U _, .• -,--· ---........ FT • X
~~var. ,.._ .......... •wwt _., f1i '"· ... ·~· C']fl!S n., ·-9C X
~~arlthM-var, --···· ~:v.•r SE ~ 11.,t.-,, I'" -·· ~ ,. ,. ~-••---'c.~ =•m -·-.. .. K;t~ I __ ~ • X -.... .....,., """"' "" ,. l'f " X
l wt --'""" FT . ,,, .,, . " X
SIP Ck:fflll'lr. ltl-,id ... ----UMA •• >1l "-A,~•91 , ... ""' ' X
1•dteee.,e eH~ 11'1 Clemenie lfll..S MACL •• fl! -w ;211, ,c X ............. Iii
""""""
https ://www .fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFW O _Species_ Status_ List%20 .htm
Page I of4
10/4/2017
Page 2 of4
-ll
l.to,,,)r<ktfo .,_ (I.I
hlJt.J··-"-... 11)1 ' -·· >IOVl ---SE .. ... -,,.It -·· • X
~~~/ll(Ro,w,o "" ,.._ ....... v.'Jller«esl ~AGA ·---ST fl! 1.•-'"'· •• -.. ' X X X X ~-. ~--· NAfO . io ,,. -I ~ :ii • X X X ·--SIMO "' m X
"urc:bVallcy~ -<Ami ~ 0 SR .. -a-.,.,. llllllfan,llco Jub1p,. PftffllOk 1!t!"tr~ ·~ knutJIO . ..., • ._, ~~.\-1'"-,,..,, • X .... ifonqOmill OltCA SB .. IIC X X X ......... ·, P£LY "' ,. .•. '* ,c X ,,.,_.,.,. .... ... ...., ... N-""U'l6N lµspudlo .l '-·-'!&~ -_..._ .6.\1)1 -...w _, ""'"" '" , ............... ,_ ·-""' X -'-s.-llnolll-->OAT I ra •·-· ·-"i1l ' X X _.._ .. "' ---· ,. .. ·• IC X
flit'"""'"'"'" SE .. .... ,c X
.-suC'niilJl.wi,ock.
~ ·-SIA ~o re . .... -jt " X
cti.ck«•-llow SIPE FWO "' '" ,c X --urcbllwM.,_ SWAI,. .,.'() SR " I""'"" ,, . ·" 1t!~¥~ ·~· ..,. ' X
~ ~if·•---m::,,. TA.CA '() .,, ':= . It ' X
1ST FW SB "' ,c X ,.....,_ __ -Uh.W-uth -... -"'" FT ~-.. ""'"' ,.,. ,, X
•·,,wm11utssait ---111!!" ST FT IIC X r-t~ ---· -ill<l!nft I ' "
LWER1'1!:BRA TES • It T A."<A; CPA"O LEAD FOR t T AXA ...,,. ,_ __
\'PFS PWO Fl' ' -~, . ., ""' '" X
•nudfMnllWVN-IUh -•· £aiiylhn--SOPS c,wo .. ,_ .. _.__ ·----IC XX
-pksljlJIM, p1o1,,.,, --OAPLPI, -~ llf&JIII l.Clll<, -·· X X x•• X X X X
~,~,t ,..___,..,_btc161. "8 """''" f'E .... ~-·· , ... !.'1l IIC X
kws~o/,.-.1 " w~ . l!SB ~.-.. •-JW1<7r. •71 ... ·-' X
,oliMrn-~ ... dl«kfflJ'OC = -·-... 1,.1-0, ·-'"' -,c XX X X G.__, ..,.vent.,w,. ,_ ... -•--· ·~ '1111 ~,'WO .. .. l,M ~ .. • X
lltl,,i~JIIO(""JIOU) ...... lhoddcfbad ,= """'" 1,!?!.!ft , __ ., X = 1,,-..,_.,_, .... HCB lcFY,•(l FC A~t NA X ~----Mowll-. ' l< "w' Al ·~., ,_,., ,.,, ,r . _ .... __
.aeihiS-.tsno--. -. ~. Yin•"" ,. .... ~~ 6C X X -R,vw,idiffa,,vlfin s f'E .. ' , .. ,c XX X X
nsu. tTAXA•Ct'WOLEAUt'OKlTAXA
c---... -.. D<]i 'O SSC FT 11:·""f-tV '•I" • "'' ~ X X X X --(11 ,. .. ., ...... '~ti\ " "'" ,, X X X -8'slm
~ -· .. --~ ,_,_ -· -... ., .... -.. Wlc , ... u . ., -,c 1, X -----__ _,
"""""" urs ~ SI "' .. .. ~-! :; "' X X X
C.A:ib,oo/o, ....... .ub Mcm\.,al\achlil <TC .. m I 6 X Gitci,, "'"' llOCII S6 ... ... ,c X X X
tl~(to,llllbol'!I ··-"' ··-·-I ~IMCMlf -,tlu :.ltlbmi.1 • .,_ A sc.,i:u '" l X XX
Prtdtod.t/wf 1-dMI -con ~ 58 .. ~-< IC X X X ...... ·-.. ,., SE .. • ,.,, ,c X X X
A.\IPHIIJlANS • 4 TA.U: CIIWO LEAD 1:oa l TAXO/'i
r-,,••-~~ -~ ~HI I -i'""!" ... <• -~ 1. \ ARTO ·-·· SSC -~-. , ... ....... __ ' .. -• X XX X X
Bol~""Vf"'rriAu ltRaHJI .......... _._ DSS -·· SE ,. . . " ... ~ .. • X
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpccicsStatusL i st/CFW O _Species_ Status_ List%20. him 10/4/2017
Page 3 of4
.t-6oylii ..... ,.., .... _ m, SN'O llLl!I X ... llf
~-
Rll,v~(/tOllrorTld.) lr.,,t,m,., ................ ,.,.,... ~Rl.l' Sf\1/0 II SSC Ff h,.,,-~.,, •... I••• ,c X XX X X --rnounlliny~
~_._ c..iitomi,
>M.P i'F'\l,'0 ,. .. .. , .. , ... ·~ --, ' . X X ~--~ llLl!I llf -~ ··-m--.JJ.J~k!lld "ff SFWO XX X X X
REPTll,.&S • .) TAXA: <:rwo LtAD rOR I TAXON' _,.,._ Wes1empc..s...-. WPf --o ~ ....w X X ~ X X
ioes,n, D!Dise(Mi.i•~
'llionDPS' Dl!l'O .,.., sr Fr I, •• ... •,•· . " .... llC X X X
,,._ , L"OKl!dla VWlcy liinp-··• -:----w, SF Ff ~<; "' '·"" '" "" " .
~ .. . bla, . .. .... IY-.&uuritorn'-....... 00. r,w, NA Ill. '"· •• ,. X
BIRDS • 16 TAXA.; CN 'O 1.tAD ~-OR 7TA.U
Nlllt.tt--
~c.__.,. scss r,wo ... Yr , ... . ... .,.. • X
-,-J-MAMU .. , "' Fr •=M , ... . ., . .,. 1C X X
lcAolldrl1&1 ffiOJIIIS tffffH14 lci:Tt tn0'"Y ~r fieCOIMp)puldlOII ,,. I,,-,t.llll -, .... .... , n' ,.,t'I'!•'' . ., '"' -u, X XX -,-.l~ltdwcloo -i,.. ___ nAJMIJ
SFWO Ln-.1,& ,a,U, y y Iv xix --· V1lCU "' T ··• .,,-~,, ••
~-·-..,llow ~...,_,_ . ....,, .. tfflf/NI,......,, ,,~ .... SWl-1. "" "' fl! "--· .... ""' , ... .lC X XX X X X ··-CM:<> .. •• ..., ,,,, 201) ,c X X X
" . .. _, , .... ... "' .. J..f,.f ..... ~ mill!, •~.,...,.1 rn l-:A X XX X • IY
1,.-,na,~_,u, -ci--1.L.:1,;e SC1.S ---<IC ,. 11 1.•····'"' ... ·-" X
~ ,.,,.,,_~ ..... v.l'lnd~ .... =-., N =· ·=• NA X XX X X X ,_ --_,.._
STIJ. "" <IC ·~ . ' X XX
~"'-trlsSIIHs :L,'11'7w' l,n-.w,iplf,., """"' mAA:ll, ,,.,, 1 ....... C.lif\Wm1,,...
, __ -·· ~ n' ,., " --~~~~ !co-it c.tifcwnia '--~-~AON ---SSC PT 1 ... "_ ... --Jiu lls,;,ll, ,.,. . ... 9C X xx X X
lli&lit--.d~
,Wlin ob#ltlw /4vip# (Jl i,-1 (ll&fll•fbottd ct ... m« 1 ... ;\ ... --... --t.... • .:--bi,l\ • n LFC• "' , .. • X XX
NMIIIIOMOk-,-.ut, i, .. l ,_;:,
.,._ aidp.ly', ,.,
ltv-r.il\ VUCk . ., ST FE h lA•·•· "" •00< ' X X X
!i:rrrm!Ailono!..,._,,_,.f
,5Nr,,;ro,.I,\ ()I ,fomlallllli.n ~T ___ , ..
rn l~v-: ... ~ UC X XX X X ,,,,.,.,,. .. tdBell't'IU'eO LBV ,. FE , ... w· X XX X X X
!tlAMMAI.S a l 'rA..XAi OPWO Lf'.AD FOR 1 TAXA
, •. --IS#! 8fflwdillo bnpw -SBIOt -·· SSC FE 1,~., ...... ·--"' X X X _,,_ ~--i --·• ..... """'O ----SSC •• \':'::;::;; NA X X
~)1'~ l~k~nl SKR ... , ST m -ms,; lW -II X X X -"' """""" -JJl
https://www .fws .gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status_ List%20. htm 10/4/2017
Page 4 of4
l<t.1lld
l'...L ...... /Mm-"
..... ___
sso ""~ .. " 11,A.-·· .. --~ ·-,c XXX --_...___., ·---.... MM) C>"\\< ,. ... LC.\..'I...,_. ,_., .. -• X
•,~,M~
...... __
~i-•~Df'S. PSS -.. ST re IL\t .. ,4\l , ... . ., "" -X X X
'~~ ...... ..... _ "" C>W SSC ... ,_.,. ..... "M if -·· 6C X X X ---Cw!IM1$1a,!r,dfiool-• ST .. "' w= ' X
UC tzrrr,'O "'-"D A ll wt£VIA110l'ri'S
Stale SI•-: SI! • •ff•dw ..... SR .. ,ae; SSC• il!lo4 -ffllcral $&ail .. "' re• cndall~ IT• .,_,fllC« Ft• andidtlo for~ P. • pllClflOIOd,.PW • pi'opoe11,011hch..m, 01. • ~ FOM • POll«'•JMI. IIIOMCll'lnl
J .. , X" •~Ill populaDOII;. 900•,o,da_y llllcGnt: 12M • 12,fllCllltl fll'lcling.
Qidul lbblUII:,. • ~ · • Re\~ fr• Final b""""1
RH Plan: P • f"alllll D • Dnft•YNr . it.cl
~ri1,uliea111is,onn,,oual ec:CWftn<fl):l.A •l,c,sA O •Orwl SD•San J:N• ,rn-. S8 • S.. B&naardino: Riv• ~ ' .,
• l'blll H l!llll:J fonul: ~•ilk -UKIV,.1 ,,_.,..., jf anr, r.ia.wtct '7cem--i. parc,11\t,nS-,.r,Al,lu,,11t-,r.M(M-i', 011MII). En.~ .. ,,.,..
"4m .-ri• Mrii11•) {lkv Valley _.,,,.-.rt)I A,ai,nal n:oat$ fo,.a,: NofflfflOII ~ i~udiin1 os,... el DPS,, if-,, ..... t4 by kicnlil°IC ••-(illd,,dilc s,·_,..,
if-..1) fo ~rtnfhtwt I~• $Met Au ..,i.u(C.-J...,..,,w); WQ(ot,_ 1111 .. Y plwff(Parif'~ CHU ,.,•bdon DP$) (0......,,,_,-'-#:f ...,_.•(Q.,Jlfk, __ .,,.,_ ...--.. ))1
I~~='.-, -t,y-,11■11,i ... 111 cFJt (.'\N •cUlftM llll'ne \_, -r ,....., .. ""'bcC,M•fl,:CII ~-IISeCIIINl'II -
' "'' lhl:nltwM rtf'et 10 lbe most rec.. S.Ytw ~(If utilize Ibo "Distnliuiioa" lint t,.IC«sl !he [COS.\
Ill Foe spedtt' «i'licll lwlbilll ~ arid boun.aries ff'lei IO b 6iMI critic.al habiw nle (If utili:a d,., -o.c..& Jbbillt" 1inlt-, •ow ibe £COS cmiClll luibit.-Mlipper
l4I IU'N~ryl'rioi1')'N\lffllllr.~ontl'WIIOsto..,_Ollhlaf,~IPll'l'llill.~•--•con11oet(NA•llOC~ic:llik)
UST R.EVIS&O J11lw6, :tlS. SF,Nn CIIANGf5 OR CORRECTIONS TO JAN£ HJ'Jl,'1>51O)'( 760-,CJl
https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/CFWO _Species_ Status_ List%20 .htm I 0/4/2017
Item #4
Attachment C
Cultural Resource Inventory Addendum
...
Item #4
March 26, 2018
Ms. Joanne Dramko,
Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 9 1942
RE: Revised Addendum Report: Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for Amendments to Segments S
and 7, Potable Water Pipelines, and the D Tank Site for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Phase m Recycled Water Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (ASM Project
No. 20460.02)
Dear Ms. Dranlko,
ln 2013 ASM Affi liates Inc. (ASM) was subcontracted by Helix Environmental, Inc. to conduct a Class I
cultural resource inventory for the proposed Phase lLl Recycled Water Project (Project) located in the city
of Carlsbad in the county of San Diego, California. The inventory included a literature and record search
conducted at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) and a search of the Sacred Lands Files of the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). This study was completed in 2013 with I.be report
prepared and formally submitted in 2014 (Daniels and Becker 2014). Since the time of the initial report
submittal there bas been several segments appended to the original Project APE that this letter report will
now address as an addendum to the original study.
The results of original Class I cultural resource inventory can be found in the 2014 report Class I Cultural
Resource Jnvemory for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project prepared
by ASM Archaeologists James T. Daniels and Mark Becker. In summary, the results of the previous report
determined that all the identified cultural resources would be either avoided or were determined to be not
significant or mitigated to less than significant impacts by prior studies. Accordingly, this letter report will
ooJy address the Class I Cultural Inventory results for the appended Project APE as the potential in1pacts
along prior proposed segments has already been examined in the original report. The original 2013 SCIC
record search data set was also re-utilized in the current study as the original record search boundary
included a quarter-mile search radius. A check of the appended Project segments shows that none of the
currently appended segments fall outside of the original quarter-mile search radius used in the original
report.
This investigation was conducted in compliance with CEQA Plus, which includes compliance with Section
106 of the NH.PA as well as CEQA. Section 106 is applicable to federal undertakings, including projects
financed or pennitted by federal agencies, regardless of whether the activities occur on land that is managed
by federal agencies, other government agencies, or private landowners. The Phase Ill project is in pan
funded by the State Revolving Fund fo r the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB).
The goal of the inventory was to determine the location of previously recorded archaeological sites that
intersect and are directly adjacent to the proposed area of potential effect (APE) in an effort to make
appropriate recommendations on locations for archaeological monitoring along the proposed project APE.
This addendum to the original Class I Inventory was conducted to provide adequate information regarding
Item #4
March 26, 2018
Page 2 of7
1he previous work and previously recorded resources in1ersec1ing and immediately surrounding lhe APE in
accordance with CEQA-Plus.
PROJECT SUMMARY AND LOCATION
The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion would be installed at the existing CWRF,
located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, California 92011. Figure I shows the proposed appended
segments. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) lies nonh and south of State Route 78 (SR-78) along the
Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansion Segment 7 (ES 7) is
located south of SR-78, west of College A venue, and nonheast of Carlsbad Village Drive (Figure 2). The
new or relocated storage tank would be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site near the intersection of
Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road (Figure 3). New potable water pipelines would be installed in the
Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (sec Figures I and 2).
Implementation of lhe 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (R WMP) is djvided into three phases: Existing
(Phase I and Phase Tl), Phase III, and Build-out. The proposed project, Phase rn, would expand CMWD's
recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water
service agencies. The Phase Ill project componentS would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase
lll project would expand the treatment capacity from 4.0 million gal. per day (mgd} to 8.0 mgd within the
CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase Ill project would also
install 81,000 ft. of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, conven existing potable water
facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight
expansion segment locations throughout the project area.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The present Class I study consisted of a formal request for records of previously identified cultural resources
and studies on file at the SCIC. The records search was completed on April 12, 2013. The current
investigation also included a request for the NAHC in Sacramento to conduct a search of the Sacred Land
Files, which was completed on April 18, 2013.
The resulting data has been used to assess:
• the extent of previously completed studies of cultural resources that intersect the currently proposed
appended Project APE;
• the number and character of previously recorded cultural resources intersecting the currently proposed
appended Project APE.
RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
The records search conducted at the SCIC on April 12, 2013 was re-util.ized for the current study as the
quaner-mile search radius applied in the original study is still adequate and applicable for the current
appended Project APE. A copy of the record search results from the SCIC is attached in Confidential
Appendix B of the original 2014 repon (see Becker and Daniels 2014).
Item #4
March 26, 2018
Pagc3of7
PREVIOUS REPORTS
As noted, 19 reports addressing portions of the currently proposed appended Project APE are identified in
the records search results {Table I). The proposed expansion segments and facilities located in the area
covered by each of the previous studies are listed in the last column of the table. A listing of the remaining
previous cultural resource reports within the ¼-mi. radius of the APE but not intersecting it may be found
in Confidential Appendix B of the original 2014 report.
Table 1,
NADB
No.
Unfiled
1121129
1121984
1122296
1122374
1122598
1124111
1124229
1124263
1124895
1125055
1126094
1127411
1128739
1129240
1129361
1129571
Previous Cultural Resource Studies Overlapping the Appended Portions of
the Project APE
Portions of
Authors Date Title Appended APE
Addressed
Susan Hector 1981 Assessment of Archaeological Sife SDM-W-133, 5 Garlsbad, California
Susan Hector 1985 An Archaeological and Historical SuNey of 5 Robertson Ranch, Garlsbad.
WESTEC 1980 Regional Historic Preservation Study Tank D Services
Environmental 1973 Environmenfa/ Impact Report for the Planned 5 lmn~ Profiles Communi/v -Garlsbad Palisades
Dennis 1992 Arr:haeo/ogical Test Report for Prehisforic Sita Tank D Galleoos CA-SDl-5819 Carlsbad CA.
Archaeological Evaluations at Galavera Hills SDI-
Sue Wade 1992 5416, Archaeological Testing at SDl-12470, SOI-5, 7
12471
Larry Draft Environmental Impact Report: Revised
1982 Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad, 5,7 Seamans California
Chartes Bull 1977 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the L,Jke 5,7 Ca/vera Hills Plan Area
Brian F. Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment of the
Mooney 1991 Carlsbad Zone 20 Specific Plan Area, Carlsbad, Tank D
Associates CA
Recon 1976 Preliminary Draft Environmen/al Impact 5 lnformaUon for Lake Cslavera Hills Units I-IV
RMW Paleo Cultural Resources Reconnaissanoo & Evaluation
Associates 1998 of the Hadley & Carnation Properties in the City of Tank D
Carlsbad, San Oieoo Countv Galifomfa
Charles S. Bull 1976 Appendix E: An Archaeological Survey of Lake 5 Calavera Hills
RMW Paleo Excavallon of Features on Site CA-SOl-6819 and
Associates 2001 Monitoring of Grading on the Hadley Property for TankD
Rvland Homes Carlsbad San Oieao Countv CA
WESTEC 1975 Excerpt from City of Csrlsbad-EIR-295, Plaza 5 Services Camino Real Ex=nsion
Brian F. A Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for Mooney 2003 TankD
Associates the Back Raif Project
Brian F. Byrd Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I
and Collin 2002 Arr:heeofogical Survey along Interstate 5, San 5
O'Neill Die= Countv CA
Monica City of Csrlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans Guerrero and
Dennis R. 2003 Cultural Resource Background Study, City of 5
Gall=os Carlsbad, Gafifomia
Item #4
March 26, 2018
Page 4 of7
NADB
No.
1131144
1132085
Authors Date
Susan Hector 2007
Russell Collett
and Dayle 2001
Cheever
Titte
cnc,na-,-.,enasqu,cos , ransm1ss1on Lme Neco, us
Searr:h
Significance Assessment of Six Cu/turol
Resourr:es Sites within the College Boulevard
Reach A Altamativa 1, One Site in the Cannon
Road Reach 3, and Three Sites in the Cannon
Road Reach 4 Alignments, Bridge and
Thorouohfare District 4
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES
Portions of
Appended APE
Addressed
TankO
5,7
The results of the records search show that there are four previously recorded sites directly intersecting the
currently proposed appended Project APE. Table 2 provides a description of each of the sites i□tersecting
the current appended APE and identifies which segment of the project each site intersects. Detailed site
records for these sites can be found in Confidential Attachment C of the current letter report. Brief
descriptions of each expansion segment and facil ity and the sites intersecting and adjacent to them are
provided below. Maps of each proposed expansion segment and facility along with the locations of
previously recorded sites are provided in Confidential Attachment B.
Table 2. Previously Recorded Sites Intersecting the Appended Portions of Project APE
Designation
Museum Appended
Primary Trinomial of Man Site Type Recorder Expansion
Number Number Segment No. Intersected
p-37. CA-SDI-SDM-W-
5601 5601 1293 Af'2. Lithic scatter: Cassiola and 7 AP15. Habitation debris Graham 1977
Franklin and
AP2. Ltthic scatter, AP3. Thesken 1978;
Romani and 5. Potable Water 6139 6139 1781 Ceramic scatter; AP15. Hawthorne 1981; Pipelines Habitation debris Morgan and
· Tennesen 2010
AP2. Lilhic scatter; AP3. Thesken 1978; 6819 6819 1878 Ceramic scatter; AP15. Huey 1992 TankD
Habitation debris
100251 AP2. Lilhic scatter, Hedges 1978;
13124 10025 133 AP15. Habitation debris Prewitt, Allen, and 5
Stahl 1967
Expansion Segment S
es 5 consists of 4-in.-to 8-in.-diameter pipeline that will extend the recycled water distribution system
north along e1 Camino Real to serve the second phase of the Robertson Ranch development, several existing
homeowners associations, and existing landscape irrigation.
Item #4
March26,2018
Page S of7
Sites SDI-6139, and CA-SDl-10025/13124 were identified as intersecting the proposed appended Project
APE of ES 5 (Figure 4 in Confidential Attachment B}. SDI-6139 was originally recorded by Franklin and
Thesken in 1978 as a possible village site wit.h a large shell, bone, ceramic, and lithic scatter, including
projectile point.s, flakes, ground stone, hammer stones, chopping tools, and a scraper. Historic-period
porcelain was also recorded. The site was revisited by Romani and Hav.~home in 1981, and they suggested
that the site was possibly an ethnohistoric village encountered by Portola in 1769. ln 20 I 0, the site was
revisited by Morgan and Tennesen of HOR to survey dirt access roads intersecting the site. They identified
some shell in the access roads, but vegetation next to the roads was dense and no other artifacts were
identified. Recon conducted an evaluation of the site and based on the absence of s ite integrity and limited
artifact density and diversity, they determined the site was not significant.
SDI-10025 was recorded in 1978 by Ken Hedges, initially as W-133, as a general surface scatter of shell,
flaked stone, and fire-cracked rock, with the dense midden deposits having a very high shell content. Three
loci are identified within the site. "fhe site was reportedly visited earlier by Malcolm Rogers, who reported
a sweat house associated with the site. Hedges was unable to re-locate this feature possibly due to a massive
earth cut in Locus A. The initial site record for SDl-13124 is the same site record prepared by Ken Hedges
from 1978 for SDI-I 0025. There is a scantly detailed site record from 1967 by Prewitt, Allan, and Stahl
that list.s a bifacial ma.no, a core, four pot sherds, 24 flakes, a broken cobble fragment, a unifacial hand
stone, another possible hand stone, and some clear glass at the site. An ElR by Phillips Brant Reddick
documenlS that SDI-10025/13124 was severely impacted and no longer retains integrity, and that no
significant impact would occur from a 26-acre project that is now complete.
Expansion Segment 7
ES 7 consist.s of 4-in.-to 8-in.-diameter pipelines that will provide service to a homeowners association,
and existing school landscaping at MiraCosta College in Oceanside. The proposed aligrunent for £$ 7 runs
along Tamarack Avenue, Chatham Road, Andover Avenue, Bridgeport Lane, and Carlsbad Village Drive.
SDl-5601 was originally recorded in 1977 as covering an area of 3 acres (Figure 4 in Confidential
Attachment B}. Four concentrations of cultural material were noted, including ground stone and flaked
stone artifacts, fire-affected rock, and shell. A testing and data recovery program was conducted by Recon
on the south half of the site prior to the residential development and impacts to the site were considered
mitigated to below a level of s ignificance (Hector 1983). The northern half of the site was also recently
tested by ASM in 2011 and determined to be not significant.
Storage Tank D
An additional recycled water storage is proposed at the existing ''Twin D" tank site. This will include either
constructing a new 1.5-MG steel tank adjacent to the two existing tanks or relocating an existing 1.5-MG
steel tank to the site. Construction would include an at-grade concrete ring wall to support the 1.5-MG tank.
SDHi8 l 9 intersects the proposed location for the storage tank (Figure 5 in Confidential Attachme□t B).
T his site-was first recorded in 1978 by Jay Thesken. The site reportedly consisted of three scrapers, one
core, two choppers, and two Tizon Brownware sherds, as well as a moderate scatter of shell on a gentle
contoured hilltop. In 1992, the northwest portion of the site was tested by Danielle Huey of Gallegos &
Associates prior to construction of several tanks and pads. The artifacts recovered included 27 piec~s of
debitage, one retouched flake, one scraper, three cores, one core tool, one hammer stone, two hand stones,
nine hand stone fragme□lS, one ground stone with battering, and 11 pot sherds. The s ite was determined to
be a Late Prehistoric temporary camp where ma.inly shellfish processing and seed grinding occurred. The
northwest portion of the site that was tested (which includes the currently proposed Tank D location} was
determined to be not significant by Gallegos & Associates (also see Daniels and Becker 2014).
Item #4
March 26, 20 18
Page 6 of7
Potable Water Pipelines
New potable water pipelines, ranging in size from 6-inches to 8-inches in diameter, would be installed in
the Carlsbad Palisades and Flower Fields neighborhoods (see Figure 4 in Confidential Attachment B). The
pipelines would be installed parallel to the existing potable water pipelines, which would be abandoned in
place. Site SDl-6139 was identified as intersecting the proposed appended potable water pipelines in the
Flower Fields neigbb-Orhoods. The site is discussed ab-Ove under Expansion Segment S. While the site was
detennined to be not significant, virtually the entire Flower Fields improvements falls within SDl-6139.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
This investigation was conducted in compliance with CEQA Plus, which includes compliance with Section
106 of the NHPA as well as CEQA. The appended project APE for the recycled water pipeline, the potable
water pipelines, and the 1.5-MG storage tank intersects a total of four previously recorded archeological
sires. The fo ur sites intersected by this project are listed in Table 3. All cultural resources witl1in the
proposed appended Project APE were determined to be not significant or mitigated to less than significant
impacts by prior studies. Therefore, the find ings of this report conclude that there will be no adverse effects
to historic properties from the appended portions of the project which remains consistent with the findings
of the original 2014 report prepared by ASM. However, archaeological monitoring is recommended in
all areas that intersect known archaeological sites and a IOO-ft. buffer surrounding them .
Table 3. Previously Recorded Sites and Potential Impacts within the Appended APE
Designation
Primary Trinomial Museum Adverse of Man Site Type Number Number No. Effects/Impacts
P-37-CA-SDI-SDM-W-
5601 5601 1293 AP2. Lithic scatter: None, Nol eligible/
AP15. Habttation debris Not significant
AP2. Lilllie scatter: AP3. None. Not eligible/ 6139 6139 1781 Ceramic scatter, AP15.
Habitation debris Not significant
AP2. Uthic scatter: AP3. None. Not eligible/
6819 6819 1878 Ceramic scatter; AP15. Not significant
Habitation debris
100251 10025 133 AP2. Lithic scatte,; None, Not eligible/
13124 AP15. Habitation debris Not significant
tf you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mark S. Becker, Ph.D., RPA
Principal Investigator
Appended
Expansion
Segment
7
5, Potable Water
Pipelines
TankD
5
Item #4
March 26, 2018
Page 7 of7
References
Daniels, James T. and Mark S. Becker
2014 Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Phase Ill Recycled
Water Project. ASM Affiliates, Inc. On file at the South Coast Information Center.
Hector, Susan M.
1983 Archaeological Excavation o/SDI-5601/SDM-W-1293, Carlsbad, California. Recon, San Diego.
On file at the South Coast Jnfonnation Center.
Attachments:
Attachment A Project Maps
Figure I. Regional project location map showing appended segments of ES 5, ES 7, Tank D, and
Potable Water Pipelines.
Figure 2. The I :24,000 scale location map with prior and appended segments of ES 5 and ES 7, along
with the Potable Water Pipelines.
Figure 3. The I :24,000 scale project locarion map showing the updated location of Tank D.
Attachment B Confidential Resource Maps
Figure 4. Archaeological sites within a¼ mile of appended segments of ES 5 and ES 7, along with the
Potable Water Pipelines.
Figure 5. Archaeological sites within a¼ mile of the updated location of Tank D.
Item #4
Addendum: CMWD Class I ()lventory
ATTACHMENT A
Project Maps
Attachment A
Item #4
' \
\ .,
-Cart&bad Pctabie Water Plpeflnu
-Proposed Modiftcation to Segment 5
-Proposed Modiftcation to Segment 7 * Storage Tank D Update
N
0 2 l Kilometers
0 0.5
Mi)es 1:50,000
... i, (
~
' • \ " r
"·· ~
) ,,
J
C..-••c~•On,,» • l i ,~ i,.,,
Attachment A
V
l
/
!.;.!
'""
... •
t .... ~'~""' 9
SOt\-1to\.1)·orCte-o:,SovtttS Esn. HER~ Ocl.om"-o !JSGS, lmcrmap. lNCRE.I.IIENT
?. kRCffl. Esn Jap.111. METI Esn Chm.a (11ttng Kong), E1r1 t<.ocea £6.11 (ThaJ3ndr
,..,apmytncliali' NGCC C ~nS:rea:\1a;:, con·'1tut1its ano ?[I! Gts uw! co~Urc.y /
' ! 4/
Figure I. Regional project location map showing appended segments of ES 5, ES 7, Tank D, and
Potable Water Pipelines.
Addendum: CMWO Class I Inventory
Item #4
Anaehmen1A
• '1 r/' Apptndl<I/ Updatl<I Stgmtnts
...
Source: San Luis Rey 7.5' USGS
Topographic Quadrangle
0 0.25 0.5 1 .
K.ifome.ters
0 0, 125 0.25 0.5
~ Miles
•,• t'e:1 C•""' ) -CarlSbad Potable water Pipelines
•C&.ti: '-
N
! i
1:24,000
,
,, === Appended Expansion Segment-7
?
Appended Expansion Segment -5
,, Prior Proposed Segments ~---.... -..ia_ Prior Expansion Segment. 5
=-= Pl1or Expansion Se,gment • 7
0 -J;j~·. <1.,; • _;_ ' . . . ' ~--=-t; 1 -. -~
\ . --,..,,::;,,. \ >
~\:-
. ,_':t◊· ~ ' ~
~~!Ls¥~.·:
$t
'!
)
\ ,, \tl i 'i-,o;, _y . ' ._,..,.,., . ' .
c. Mn !,j.:~-~ <
'._-: ~~. :i::::i~2)~,~,~.£<~,¾
~.r{q; I;'~. . ;
, -• ~I ?
Figure 2. The I :24,000 scale location map with prior and appended segments of ES 5 and ES 7,
along with the Potable Water Pipel ines.
Addendum: CMWD Oass I Jnventory
Item #4
Attachment A
1 urce: nc1n1 s .
Topographic Quadrangle (1975)
0 0.25 0.5 N
~ t Kilometers
0 0.15 0.3 0.6
Mil&S 1:24,000
,. . . -:,:"fl ,
Figure 3. The I :24,000 scale project location map showing the updated location of Tank D.
Addendum: CMWD Class I Jnven1ory
Item #4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
Division of Financial Assistanca
P. 0. Box 944212. Sacramento. CA 94244-2120
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPUCA TION
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Water Recycling Funding Program
ENVIRONMENTAL PACKAGE
Aoolicant (Entity) Name: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Prolect Title: Addendum to the Carlsbad Municipal W ater District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project
Contact Person: Pam Drew I Phone: 760-602-4644
I. CEQA STATUS
Please check the one box that describes the project in this application.
D The CEOA process has not 0 The CEOA process is 181 The CEOA process is D The CEQA was completed
yet started for this project underway for this project• complete for this project for this project more than
(complete Question 2 5 years prtor lo anticipated
below) State Water Board
agreement date ..
(complete Question 2
below)
" A draft of the CEQA documttnt Shall tHt provld/Jd to the Division for review and comment. Also provide to the DMslon copies of any sub$1antlating
federal cross-cutter infonnatlon (i.6., USAVS species flstlbfologlcal asse.ssmenr. cultural resources report, air quality analysis data, flood map, etc.). This
w#J enab/$ the OM$JOtl to better understand the environmental impact.s. and provide more meaningful comments on the draft CEQA document before it
Is sent to the State Clearinghouse.
·• ff the CEQA document was prepared more than five yea.rs priOr to tfM! ant;c;;,att!'d assis.tan<:4 agm&me-nt execution date, pfftase prowde an updtJttd
CEQA documttnt (.subsd<quertt, supplemental or addendum) that evaluates the cutrent environmental status of the project.
II. CEQA DOCUMENTS' .. (complete this section only if the CEQA process has been completed for this project)
Please check all box (es) that describe this application and submit the required attachments for the applicable section(s).
D Project is oovered under a □ Project is covered under a 181 Project is covered under a 0 Project is covered under an
CEOA Categorical or Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Environmental Impact
Statutoiy Exemption (comploto Section B Declaration (complete Report (complete
(complete Section A below and attach Section C below and Section D below and
below and attach documents) attach documents) attach documents)
documents)
••• Ifs Joint CEQAINEPA document (EIR/Environmental Assessment or EIRIEnv'fronmental Impact Statt1mt1nt) is pmp~d for lhe ptoj(Jct, submit thtl
epplicable RectH'd of Dtld.skJn and/or Fil>ding of No S/gl'llf1canl lmf)IJCt.
Roaulrcd Attachments
E1· EVALUATION FORM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ANO FEDERAL
COORDINATION
E2· DRAFT ANO FINAL INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS/NO)
E3· DRAFT ANO FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (ISIMND)
E4• DRAFT ANO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
ES· COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
E6-STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION {II Applicable)
E7-MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN/PROGRAM (MMRP}
ES· RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CEQA DOCUMENTS
E9· NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
E10-NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
FOR STATE use ONLY
CWSRF Proiect #
Proieci Man=er
Date Received
Financial Assistance Application
{REV. 02/2014)
Page 1 ot 10
Section A Section B Section C Section D
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Envifonment.al Paekage
Item #4
E1 -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FEDERAL COORDINATION ATTACHMENTS
Check the box next to each item to indicate which supporting attachments you have provided with your application. The supporting
documents must be provided unless tt is not applicable.
l8l E1 .1 -Clean Air Act
• Air qualtty modeling data
• Complete air emissions chart (see Evaluation Fonn below)
• General confonnity and/or air quality studies. as applicable
0 E1.2 -Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA)
• Consultation record for CBRA resources in the vicinity of the projecl area with the USFWS, if applicable
0 E1 .3 -Coastal Zone Management Act
• Copy of coaslal zone pennit or coaslal exemption, if applicable
l8l E1.4 -Endangered Species Act
• Up-to-date (less than one year old) USFWS, CDFW Natural Diversity Database. and CNPS species lists
• Project-level biological resources and habitat evaluation including field survey and species lists review
• Record of federal consullatlon and correspondence. if applicable
0 E1 .5 -Environmental Justice
• Consultation record for the affected areas with the USEPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
if applicable
0 E1.6-Farmland Protection Policy Act
• Assessment of the conversion of prime/unique farmland and farmland of statewidenocal importance to
non-agricultural uses. if applicable
• Assessment of Williamson Act lands converted and/or affected, if applicable
• Consultation with USDA and oorrespondence. if applicable
l8l E1.7-Flood Plain Management
• FEMA ffood mapping of the project area, if applicable
• Assessment of flood hazard and drainage pattern alteration, if applicable
(8l E1 .8 -National Historical Preservation Act
• Cultural Resources Report (with less than one year old record search, extending to a half-mile beyond the
project area of potential effects (APE) on historic propertres consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) requirements
0 E1 .9 -Magnuson.Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
• Essential Fish Habilat (EFH) Assessment for the State Water Board's consultation wtth the NOAA National
Marine Fisheries Service, if applicable
• Please see regulation E1.4 above for EFH Assessment requirements
(8l E1.10-Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• list of migratory birds induding avoidance measures, if appficab/e
0 E1.11-Protection of Wetlands
• Copy or 401 Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if applicable
• Copy of 404 penntt from the U.S. Anny Corps or Engineers (USACE). if applicable
• Wetland delineation and survey assessment. ;f applicable
0 E1.12 -Safe Drinking Water Act, Sola Source Aquifer Protection
• Consultation record with the USEPA Region 9 Ground Water Office, if applicable
0 E1.13-Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
• Consultation record with the USDA Forest Service Region 5 Office, if epp/icab/e
Financial Assistance Application
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 2 of 10 Envlronlll<lnla!Package
Item #4
Attachment E1
Evaluation Form for Environmental Review and Federal Coordination
Applicant Name: Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Project Trtle: Addendum to tho Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Iii Recycled Water Project
1. Clean Air Act:
Air Basin Name: San Diego Air Basin
Local Air District for Project Area: San Diego County Air Pollution Control Dislricl
Is this project subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) conformity determination?
0 No -The project is in an attainment or unclassified area for all federal criteria pollutants.
181 Yes -The project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject to maintenance plans fo, a federal criteria pollutant. Include
information to indicate the nonattainment designation {e.g., moderate, serious, severe, or extreme), if applicable. If estimated emissions
{below) are above the federal de minimis levels, but the project is sized to meet only the needs of rurrent population projections that are
used In the approved SIP lo< air quality, then quantitatively indicate how the proposed capacity increase was calculated using
population projections.
Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction and operation would be below federal de minimis levels for all
pollutants.
• Tho lead Agency shall provide the estimated project construction and operational air emissions (in tons per year) in the
chart bolow1 and attach supporting calculations, regardless of attainment status.
• Also, attach any air quality studies that have been done for the project. (HELIX 2018a, 2013a)
Pollutant
Ozone (OJ)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,)
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC~
Reactive Organic Gasos
{ROG)
Lead (Pb)
Particulate Mattor loss
than 2,5 microns In
diameter lPM .\
Particulate Matter loss
than 10 microns In
dlamotor lPM, .. l
Sulfur Dloxldo (SO,)
Finantaal Assistance Appflcation
(REV. 02/2014)
Fodoral Status
(Attainment. Nonattalnment Rates
Nonattalnmont. (Le., moderate, serious,
Maintenance, or
Unelasslfledl
severe, or extreme)
Nonattainment Marg.inal
Maintenance -
See ozone above See ozone above
Sec ozone above See ozone above
Attairment -
Attalnme<1V
Undassifiable -
Unclassified -
Altalnment -
Page3of 10
Threshold of
Sfgnificance for Construction Operation
Emissions Emissions Project Air Basin (tons/year) (tons/year) (H appllcable)
see Voe and NOx See voe and NOx see voe and NO.
below below below
550 pounds po< day: 5 0 100 tons -r ""at
250 pounds po< day: 1 0 40 tons !"IN w>ar
75 pounds per day: 1 0 13.7 tons pee year
3.2 pounds per day;
0.6 tons oer vear --
55 pounds po< day:
10 tons per year 1 0
100 pot>1dS per day: 5 0 15 tons per year
250 poundS per day: 0 0 40 tons -r •-ar
Envirorwnental P&ckage
Item #4
2. Coastal Barriers Resources Act
Will the project Impact or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or Its adjacent weUands, marshes,
estuaries, inlets, and near-shore waters? Note that since there is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in
California, projects located in California are not expected to impact the Coastal BarTier Resources System in other states. If
the111 Is a special circumstance In which the project may Impact a Coastal Barrier Resource System, indicate your reasoning
below.
181 No -The project will not affect or be located within or near the Coastal Barrier Resources System or its adjacent wetlands, marshes.,
estuaries, inlets. and near-shore waters, explain:
The project is located within Califomia. There is currently no Coastal Barrier Resources System in California.
D Yes -Describe the project location with respect to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, and the status of any consultation with
the appropriate Coastal Zone management ageney and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service:
3. Coastal Zone Management Act:
Is any portion of the project site located within the coasta.1 zone?
0 No -The project is not within the coastal zone, explain:
181 Yes -Describe the project location with respect to coastal areas and the status of the coastal zone permil and provide a copy of the
coastal zone permit or coastal exemption:
The new storage tank location and the Palisades potable water pipelines are located within the Coastal Zone. The new pipeline
extensions for Segment Sand 7 and the Flower Fields potable water pipelines are located outside of the Coastal Zone.
Development within the coastal zone boundaries is subject to the Cartsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Resource
Protection Overlay Zone Ordinance, and the Cal~ornia Coastal Act (CCA) and would be subject to a Coastal Development Permit
(CDP). The city·s LCP was approved and certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1996 and the latest amendment was
approved in 2016. The city acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects within its coastal zone, with a few
exceptions, There are areas of "deferred certification" where the state retains its permitting authority. All projects in the coastal zone
would require review for consistency with the LCP and CCA prior to issuance of a COP, which would occur once preliminary design
drawings are prepared. This would ensure that infrastructure projects will be consistent with the LCP; indrvidual components would
require this review on a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
The storage tank and pipelines that occur within the Coastal Zone would not adversely affect or impact Environmentally Sensttive
Habitat Area (ESHA) or other protected coastal resources identified within the approved city's LCP. The proposed modifications would
not conflict with the city's LCP, including the Development Standards in Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone Ordinance. Therefore. the proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Coastal Zone Management Act.
4. Endangered Species Act (ESA):
Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth Inducement that
may affect federally listed threatened or endange111d species or their critical habitat that a111 known, or have a potential, to
occur on-site, in the surrounding area, or In the service area?
• Required documents: Attach project-level biological surveys, evaluations analyzing tho project's direct and indirect effects
on special-status species, and an up-to-date specl&s 11st (less than one year old from th& United States Fish and WIidiife
Service, the California Natural Diversity Database and the California Nativ& Plant Society) for the project area, (HELIX 2018b,
HELIX 2013b)
D No -Discuss why the project wm not affect any federally listed special status species:
181 Yes -Provide information on federally listed species that could petentially be affected by this project and any proposed avoidance
and compensation measures so that the State Water Board can inttiate informal/formal consultation with the applicable federally
designated ageney. Elcplain any previous ESA consultations /coordination conducted with the National Marine Fisheries Service or
USFWS for the project:
The proposed modifications do not directly impact federally listed species, and are not likely to result in indirect impacts 10 these
species. Further, none of the proposed modifications occur within undeveloped areas supporting naturalized habitat and design ated by
the USFWS as Critical Habitat for federally listed species. None of lhe sttes support the primary constituent elements (PCEs) of
USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for any federally listed species. Therefore, the proposed modifications will have no effect on Critical
Habitat. Further discussion is orovlded below r=ardi~ ~tential effects of the oro=ed modifications on federallv listed s=ies.
Fi.nancial Assistance App6cat1on
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 4 ol 10 El'Witonmentat Package
Item #4
Federally listed Plant Species: None of the 12 listed plant species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013b) has been
reported as oocupying habttat specifically located within the Segment 5 extensions, or within the storage tank location, No listed plant
species were observed during the October 3, 2017 general biological survey. Listed plant species are not likely to occur in or near the
proposed modifications. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects on federally listed plant species are anticipated to occur as a result of
proposed modifications.
Federally•Listed Animal Species: None of the nine listed animal species noted in the Biological Resources Study (HELIX 2013b) has
been reported as occupying habitat specifically located within the proposed mOOification sites. No listed animal species were observed
or otherwise detected (e.g., by call or sign such as nest, feathers, tracks, scat, etc.) during the October 3, 2017 general biological
survey. Therefore, none of the nine listed animal species has the potential to occur within the proposed modification sites themselves,
and no direct effects would occur as a result of the proposed modifications.
However, six of the nine federally listed species have a potential to occur within off.site habitat located in the immediate vicinity (i.e., at
locations within 100 feet) of the proposed modifications locations, as follows:
• San Diego fairy shrimp has low potential to occur within the temporarily ponded area located on the graded development pad,
within 100 feet of the proposed storage tank location.
• Coastal California gnatcatcher has the potential to nest within off~site coastal sage scrub-eucalyptus woodland, to the west of
Tamarack Avenue along the Segment 5 Tamarack Avenue extension.
• Least Bell's vireo has the potential to nest within off-site wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek, located north of the Segment
5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in the area in 2015.
• Light-footed dapper rait is not likely to nest but has the potential to forage (only) within off-site wetland habitat along Buena
Vista Creek, located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena Vista Lagoon in
2007.
• Southwestern willow flycatche, is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a temporary migrant within off-site
wetland habitat along Buena Vista Creek. located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded
approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the area in 1984.
• Western snowy plover is not likely to nest, but has the potential to forage (only) as a wintering resident within off-site wetland
habitat along Buena Vista Creek. located north of the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension. This species was recorded in Buena
Vista Lagoon in 1995, but is presumed extirpated.
Potential indirect effects on federally•listed animal species from construction of the proposed modifications could include those resulting
from temporary increases in noise and vibration. In addition, construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas could result in
inadvertent intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habttats adjacent to construction zones that may support
federally listed animal species. Night lighting is also a typical indirect impact of construction: however. the Ca~sbad Municipal Water
District has committed to daytime construction hours and construction of the proposed modifications would not require the use of
nighttime lighting. The storage tank would have security lighting; this lighting would be shielded down and would not spill over into
sensitive biological areas. Therefore, indirect effects resutting from nighttime lighting would be less than significant
Indirect effects associated with noise, vibration and inadvertent intrusions into sensitive habitat areas could be potentially adverse and
significant on federally listed species only if construction would occur during the breeding season and if the species would be nesting in
the immediate vicintty of construction activities. As Identified above, coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo represent the
only federally listed species wtth potential to nest in the immediate vicintty of the proposed modifications. Indirect effects on San Diego
fairy shrimp could also occtJr as a result of construction equipment and personnel entering into sensitive basin habttat. Potentially
adverse indirect effects would not be anticipated to occur to federally listed species within the potential to forage (only) within adjacent
habitat, such as the light-footed dapper rail, southwestern willow ffycatcher, and western snowy plo11er. Species with the potential to
forage (only) would only be expected to use the adjacent habitat temporarily and would be able to relocate into alternative foraging
areas without being harmed.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1A through Bio-1F. included in the Adopted 1S/MNO (Atkins 2012), would reduce potentially
adverse and significant indirect effects on nesting federally listed species to less than significant levels. These measures include: Bio-
1A, Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors: Bio-1B, Pre•Construction Biological Resource Surveys; Bio-1C, Orange Construction
Fencing; Bio•1D, Construction•Related Noise: Bio-1E, Construction Staging Areas: and Bio-1F, Contractor Training. With the
implementation of these measures, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect nesting federally listed species and the
project would be in conformance with the ESA
Anancial Assistance Application
(REV. 021201 4)
Page 5 of 10 Ern,fronmentaJ Package
Item #4
5. Environmental Justice:
Does the project involve an activity that is likely to be of particular Interest to or have particular Impact upon minority, low•
Income, or indigenous populations, or tribes?
181 No -Selecting "No" means lhat this action is not likely to be of any particular interest to or have an effe<:t on lhese populations or
tribes, explain:
The proposed modifications include a storage tank relocation within an existing Car1sbad Municipal Water District site and minor
pipeline extensions. These infrastructure modifications would be located within existing dtsturbed and developed roadway and utility
rights-of-way and would not affect minority, low-income, indigenous populations, or tribes. Local Native American tribes were contacted
as part of Section 106 compliance for 1he Adopted IS/MND (see Item #8 of this checklist).
D Yes -If you answer yes, please check at least one of the boxes and provide a brief explanation below:
D The project is likely to affect 1he health of these populations.
D The project is likely to affect the environmental conditions of these populations.
D The project is likely to present an opportunity to address an existing disproportionate impact of these populations.
D The project is likely to result in the collection of information or data lhat could be used to assess potential impacts on lhe
health or environmental conditions of these populations.
D The project is likely to affect the availability of information to these populations.
D Olher reasons (please describe):
6. Fanmland Protection Polley Act:
Is any portlon of the project located on important farmland?
181 No -The project will not affect protected farmland. Explain:
The alignment for lhe proposed modifications does not conlain mapped Prime or Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local lmporlance, or
Grazing Land. There are no Williamson Act lands wilhin lhe p,oje<:t alignment.
D Yes -Include infonnation on the ae<eage that would be converted from important farmland to other uses. Indicate if any portion of
the project boundaries is under a Williamson Act Contract and specify the amount of acreage affected:
7. Flood Plain Management:
Is any portion of the project located within a 100-yoar floodplain as depicted on a floodplain map or otherwise designated by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency?
• Required documents: Attach a floodplain map.
D No- Provide a description of the project location with respect to streams and potential floodplains:
181 Yes -Describe the floodplain, and include a floodplains/wetlands assessment. Describe any measures
and/or project design modifications !hat would minimize or avoid flood damage by the project
The 100-year FEMA floodplain map is attached to this dOcument as Figure 1. No proposed modifications are located within 100-year
floodplains.
8. National Historic Preservation Act:
Identify tho area of potential effects (APE) with both cartographic and textual descriptions, Including construction, staging
areas, and depth of a.ny excavation. (Note: the APE Is throo dimensional and includes all areas that may be affected by the
project, including the surface area and extending below ground to the depth of any project excavations).
• Required documents: Attach a copy of a Cultural Resourc,es Report prepared by a qualified professional that includes a
current records search (less than one year old, extonding to a half-mile beyond the project APE), with maps showing all
sites and surveys drawn In relation to the project area, records of Native American consultation, and a consultation letter
for the State Water Board to use for consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. (ASM Affiliates. Inc. 2018).
Financial As.s•stenoe Applica11on
(REV. 02/2014)
Page6 or 10 EnVlronmental Package
Item #4
A Class I cultural resource in\'entory was prepared in 2014 by ASM Affiliates Inc., after adoption of the IS/MNO, in compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for the CEQA Plus analysis. ASM sent letters to a list of tribes provided by
the Native American Heritage Commission to inquire about any Issues of cultural concern regarding the project area for the Adopted
IS/MND and no responses were received. An Addendum Report to the Class I cultural resource inventory was prepared by ASM
Affiliates Inc. in 2018 to analyze the cuttural resource sensitivity of the proposed modifications.
The Addendum Report determined that cultural resources within SOl-6139 (Segment 5 and Flower Fields potable water pipelines) were
no longer identified as significant in recent surveys due to absence of site integrity and limtted artifact density and di\'ersity. In a recent
sur\'ey, SDl-10025 (Segment 5) was determined to be severely impacted by previous activities and would not have significant cultural
resources, SDl-5601 (Segment 7) has previously undergone a testing and data recovery program due lo residential development in the
area, and a recent survey determined the rest of the site to not have significant cultural resources. SOl-6819, located near the storage
tank site, had undergone artifact recovery prior to construction of the existing tanks and pads on site. This sjte was recentfy tested and
detennined lo not contain significant cultural resources. In addition, the proposed modifications would implement the cultural resource
procedures in Appendix A of the Adopted ISIMND (Atkins 2012), which includes retaining a qualified archaeologist and Native American
monitor if subsurface cultural resources are eneountered or if evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resources
are encountered. Further. the proposed modifications would provide archaeological and Native American monitoring in the areas that
Intersect with known archaeological sites and a 100-foot buffer surrounding them. Therefore, there would be less than significant
impacts to cultural resources from the proposed modifications.
Parts of Segment 5 and Segment 7 were identified as being within a high paleonlological sensitivity area; therefore, the Segment 5 and
Segment 7 extensions may be in these areas. However, as with the Approved Project components, the proposed modifications would
occur within existing roadway ROW that has already been disturbed, and significant impacts from the proposed modifications would not
occur.
Similar to the Approved Project, the proposed modifications would implement the required protocols under Public Resources Code
(PRC) Section 5097.97 and Califomia State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 if human remains are encountered; therefore,
impacts to human remains would be less than significant
Given the aforementioned, the proposed modifications would be consistent with the NHPA.
9. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act:
Does the project involve any direct effects from construction activities, or Indirect effecls such as growth Inducement that
may adversely affect essential fish habitat?
181 No -Discuss why the project will not affe<:t essential fish habttat:
The proposed modifications would be constructed within disturbed and/or developed upland areas that lack marine resources and
Essential Fish Habitat regulated under the Magnuson-Ste\'ens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. No Essential Fish Habttat
occurs in the immediate vicinity of the proposed modifications. Therefore, the proposed modifications would not adversely affect
Essential Fish Habttat and would be in conformance with the Magnuson-Ste\'ens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
D Yes -Provide information on essential fish habitat that could potentially be affected by this project and any proposed avoidance and
compensation measures. Explain any previous consultations/coordination conducted with the National Marine Fisheries Service for the
project
10. Migratory Bird Treaty Act.:
Will tho project affect protected migratory birds that are known1 or have a potential, to occur on•site, in the surrounding area,
or In the service area?
D No -Provide an explanation below.
181 Yes -Discuss the impacts (such as noise and vibration impacts, modification of habitat) to migratory birds that may be directly or
indireci!y affected by the project and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Include a list of all migratory birds that
could occur where the project is located:
The proposed modifications would be constructed in the immediate vicinity of developed and undeveloped areas characterized by
trees, shrubs, and man.made structures (e.g., buildings, water tan.ks, etc.) that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common and
sensitive bird species, including raptors. protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Common bird species with the potential to nest
in the vicinity of project components Include species such as California towhee (Me/ozone crissalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
black phoebe (Sayomis nigricans), northern mocl<ingbird (Mimus po/yg/ottos), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna's
humminobird (Cal=te annal American crow (Corvus brachvrflvnchosl. moumino dove (Zenaida macroural. and Bullock's oriole
Flnanclal Assistance Application
(REV. 0212014)
Page 7 of 10 Emlironmental Package
Item #4
(lcteros bullocki1). Sensitive bird species with the potential to nest include federally listed species such as coastal Califomla gnatcatcher
and least Bell's vireo, in addition to non-listed sensttive species such as southem California l\lfous-erowned sparrow (Aimophlla
ruficeps canescens), Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza balli ball,), red-shouldered hawl< (Buteo linea/us), and Cooper's hawk (Accipffer
cooperi1).
Indirect effeciS could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an
active bird nest (or nests on man..made structures), such that the disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. These
potential adverse effects on nesting birds and raptors would be in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Acl
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1A (Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors) of the Adopted IS/MND (Atl<ins 2012), the
proposed modifications would be in conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Acl
11. Protection of Wetlands:
Does any portion of the project boundaries contain areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a pennit
from the United States Army Corps of Engineers?
0 No -Provide the basis for such a determination:
~ Yes -Qescribe the affect to wetlands, potential wetland areas, and other surface waters, and the avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. Provide the status of the permit and information on permit requirements:
No portions of the proposed modification boundaries contain any areas that should be evaluated for wetland delineation or require a
permit from USACE. The proposed modifications would be constructed entirely within upland areas that do not support wetlands or
other waters of the U.S. subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of USACE. Therefore, no direct effects to federally protected wetlands or
other waters of the U.S. would occur.
Evidence of ponding was observed on the graded development pad located within the reclaimed water tank facility. Because of its
isolation from waters of the U.S., this area would not be considered federally jurisdictional.
The new pipeline sections would be constructed entirely within existing roads designed with curb, gutter, and storm drain features to
accommodate stormwater. Therefore, runoff from these would enter into existing storm drain facilities., wllich may discharge into nearby
wetlands. For example, the Segment 5 Monroe Street extension is located within a shopping center built just east of Buena Vista
lagoon and south of Buena Vista Creek. The storage tank would be const1UCted on a graded development pad, wllich has a small
berm at the downslope edge to restrict water 1Unoff. Potential indirect effects on off-site wetlands and/or other waters of the U.S. may
occur if 1Unoff from construction work areas is not properly controlled and treated before entering storm drain facilities that discharge
into downstream weUand areas.
Potential 1Unoff and increase in pollutants associated with construction activities adjacent to undeveloped areas would be controlled
and reduced through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other protective measures incorporated into the
project as mandatory requirements for regulatory compliance. These include acquisition of a Storm Water General Permit and General
Linear Utility Permi~ in addition to compliance with local development standards, including the preparation of Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and application of appropriate BMPs.
Construction activities would compty with the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), Califomia's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
the implementing regulations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) a.nd Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. In accordance with the CWA and the NPDES
program, the SWRCB adopted the California General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity.
Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ (General Permit) and the RWQCB has issued an NPDES/Waste Disciharge
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 Distric~ and the san Diego County Regional Airport Authority
(MS4 permit). Proposed modifications not falling within the coverage thresholds of the General Permit would be subject to compliance
with the implementing ordinances of the county and cities bound by the MS4 permit to enforce storm water disciharge controls required
under the MS4 permit.
For proposed modifications covered under the General Permit (e.g., generally for projects resulting in ground disturbance of greater
than one acre), the Catlsbad Municipal Water District would submit a Notice of Intent to be covered under the terms and conditions of
the General Permit, prepare a SWPPP prescribing BMPs, monitoring, inspection, and recordkeeping requirements in accordance with
the General Permit provisions, in order to control storm water discharge rates, reduce erosion, and reduce the occurrence of pollutants
in sutface water 1Unoff. 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 compfiance under the permit.
BMPs (e.g., berms, straw wattles, silt fencing, swales, and percolation basins) are storm water control measures intended to control the
rate of dischal't'\O and to orevent ""'llutants from enterino stonn water runoff and mav include measures to minimize oroiect
Financial Assistance AppOcation
(REV. 0212014)
Page 8 of 10 En,Aronmental Package
Item #4
disturbance. protect slopes, reduce erosion, and limlt 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 oonsttuclion is not oocurnng on a
portion of the site, and pennanent stabilization is provided by finish grading and pennanent landscaping.
• Protecting slopes and channels. Outside of the appro\/ed grading plan area. disturbance of natural channels is avoided, slopes and
crossings are stabilized, and runoff velocity caused by the project is managed to avoid erosion to slopes and channels.
• Controlling the site perimeter. Upstream runoff is diverted around or safely conveyed through the proposed modifications and is
kept free of excessive sediment and other constituents.
• Controlling internal erosion. Sediment-laden waters from disturbed, active areas within the site are detained (e.g., siltation basins) •
Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-18, Bio-1C, Bio-1E, and Bio-1F would prevent inadvertent intrusions of construction
equipment and personnel into off-site sensitive habitats and mttigate this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the
incorporation of the above-referenced protective measures, the project would not result In any adverse effects on federally protected
wetlands and would be in oonfonnance with the CWA.
12. Safe Drinking Water Act, Sole Source Aquifer Protection:
Is the project located In an area designated by the United States Envlronmental Protection Agency, Region 9, as a Sole
Source Aquifer?
181 No -The project is not within the boundaries of a sole source aquifer. (EPA 2015)
D Yes -Identify the sole source aquifer (e.g., Santa Margarita Aquifer, Scott's Valley, the Fresno County Aquifer, the
Campo/Cottonwood Creek Aquifer or the Ocotillo-Coyote Wells Aquifer) that will be affected:
13. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:
Identify watershed where the project Is located:
Is any portion of the project located within a wild and scenic river?
• Required documents: Attach a map if any portion of the project is located within a wild and scenic river watershed.
181 No-The project will not affect a wild and scenic river. Explain:
The project is not located within or adjacent to a wild and scenic river (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System 2018),
D Yes -Identify the wild and scenic river watershed and project location relative to the affected wild and scenic river:
Flnanoial Assistance Appfieation
(REV. 02/2014)
Page9o/10 En~ronmental Package
Item #4
References
ASM Affiliates, Inc. 2018. Addendum Report: Class I Cultural Resource Inventory for Amendments to Segments 5 and 7
and the D Tank Site for the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California (ASM Project No. 20460). January 7.
Atkins. 2012. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project, Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration. November 14.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Pacific Southwest, Region 9, Ground Water, Sole Source Aquifer.
https://archive.epa.govlregion9lwaterlarchivelweb/htmVssa.html. Last updated on September 9, 2015.
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2018a. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project,
Addendum to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. February 21 .
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2018b. Addendum Report to the Biological Resources Study end Adopted
ISIMND findings for Carlsbad Municipal Weter District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. February 21.
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2013a. CMWD Phase Ill Recycled Water Project SRF Project Air Quality
Conformity Analysis. May 14.
HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2013b. Biological Resources Study for SRF Program Application, Carlsbad
Municipal Water District Phase Ill Recycled Water Project. May 15.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 2018. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Website.
http://www.rivers.gov/index.php. Accessed on March 5, 2018.
Financial Assistance AppllcatJon
(REV. 02/2014)
Page 100110 Environmental Package
Item #4
F£MA 100-Year Floodplain
Proposed Modification to Segment 7
---Prop,ostd Modifleat'0n to Segmt.nt s
0
HELIX
&rrinlM'.l!rJal PilMihO FEMA Floodplain
Figure 1