Attachment 1
East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029
December 2018
Prepared for: Padre Dam Municipal Water District 9300 Fanita Parkway Santee, CA 92071
Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942
East County Advanced Water Purification Project
Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH# 2018091029
Prepared for:
Padre Dam Municipal Water District 9300 Fanita Parkway Santee, CA 92071
Prepared by:
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942
December 2018 | KJC-24.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD ...... F-1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 3 3.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 18 I. Aesthetics ...... 19 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ...... 23 III. Air Quality ...... 24 IV. Biological Resources ...... 32 V. Cultural Resources ...... 49 VI. Geology and Soils ...... 56 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 63 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 66 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 71 X. Land Use and Planning ...... 81 XI. Mineral Resources ...... 83 XII. Noise ...... 84 XIII. Population and Housing ...... 103 XIV. Public Services...... 104 XV. Recreation ...... 105 XVI. Transportation / Traffic ...... 106 XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 116 XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems ...... 117 XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 120 4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES ...... 124
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Project Information Summary Tables B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report* C Biological Resources Technical Letter* D Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment* E Hazardous Materials List* F Acoustical Analysis Report* G Construction Traffic Analysis* H NOI and Proof of Publication I Responses to Comments J Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
*Appendices are available for review on Padre Dam Municipal Water District’s website at: https://www.padredam.org/99/Public-Notices
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Follows Page
1 Regional Location ...... 4 2 Project Location ...... 6 3 Construction Techniques ...... 6 4 Ray Stoyer WRF Conceptual Site Plan ...... 6 5 AWP Pipeline to Inlet, Lake Jennings Inlet, and Air Dispersion System ...... 8 6 Proposed Dechlorination Facility ...... 8 7a Conceptual View of Lake Jennings Inlet Water Feature ...... 8 7b Conceptual View of Lake Jennings Inlet ...... 8 8 Conceptual View of Aeration Building and Generator ...... 8 9 EMG Force Main, Pump Station, and Residuals Bypass System ...... 8 10 Construction Traffic Volumes ...... 112 11 Near-term Baseline Traffic Volumes ...... 112 12 Near-term Baseline + Construction Traffic Volumes ...... 112
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Participating Agencies for the East County Advanced Water Purification Project ...... 4 2 Construction Schedule and Equipment ...... 10 3 Anticipated Regulatory Permits and Approvals ...... 17 4 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ...... 26 5 Maximum Daily Operational Emissions ...... 28 6 Impacts to Vegetation Communities within the Disturbance Area ...... 39 7 Historical Resources within the Project Area ...... 52 8 Archaeological Resources within the Project Area ...... 53 9 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ...... 64 10 Total Estimated Operational GHG Emissions ...... 65 11 Hazardous Materials Sites within 50 Feet of the Project Site...... 69 12 City of Santee Property Line Noise Limits ...... 86 13 City of San Diego Noise Limits ...... 87 14 County of San Diego Municipal Code Exterior Sound Level Limits ...... 88 15 County of San Diego Maximum Sound Levels (Impulsive)...... 89 16 SHERF Noise Control Features ...... 100 17 Acoustic Louver Octave Band Transmission Loss - AWTP Facility ...... 101 18 Allowable Increases on Congested Intersections ...... 109 19 Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 110
iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAR Acoustical Analysis Report ADT average daily trips APE Area of Potential Effect AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials AWP Advanced Water Purification AWTP Advanced Water Treatment Plant
BACT best available control technology BMPs best management practices
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Cal-OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons CFMP Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan CGS California Geological Society CH4 Methane CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision CMU concrete masonry unit CNEL Community noise equivalent level CNPS California Native Plant Society CRHR California Register of Historic Places CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CTA Construction Traffic Analysis CUP Conditional Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act dBA A-weighted decibel DEH Department of Environmental Health District Padre Dam Municipal Water District DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
East County East San Diego County ECAWP East County Advanced Water Purification EIR Environmental Impact Report EMG East Mission Gorge ESA Eastern Service Area
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG greenhouse gas GRRP groundwater replenishment and reuse
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons hp Horsepower HRAs Health Risk Assessments HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IBC International Building Code in/sec inches per second IPS Influent Pump Station IS Initial Study kW Kilowatt
LDN Day-Night noise level LEQ average sound energy over a specified period LID Low Impact Development LLG Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers LMAX highest instantaneous sound level measured over a period LOMR Letter of Map Revision LOS level of service LUST leaking underground storage tank
Metro Metropolitan Wastewater System (City of San Diego) mgd million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program MT metric ton
v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NNL National Natural Landmarks NOX nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC Noise Reduction Coefficient NSLU noise sensitive land use
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PEIR Programmatic Environmental Impact Report PFCs Perfluorocarbons PLWWTP Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant PM particulate matter PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter PPV peak particle velocity PRC Public Resources Code
R&D Research and Development RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions ROGs reactive organic gases ROW right-of-way RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments Santee City of Santee Santee Lakes Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve SB Senate Bill SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SF square foot/feet SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SHERF Solids Handling and Energy Recovery Facility SIP State Implementation Plan SLF Sacred Lands File SO2 sulfur dioxide SR State Route SSMP Sewer System Management Plan STC Sound Transmission Class
vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.)
SWA surface water augmentation SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources TDS total dissolved solids TMP Traffic Management Plan TSS total suspended solids
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USPS U.S. Park Service
VAP Voluntary Assistance Program VOC volatile organic compounds
WRF Water Recycling Facility WSA Western Service Area
vii
This page intentionally left blank
viii East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
FOREWORD
A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Padre Dam Municipal Water District (District) East County Advanced Water Purification Project (project) was prepared and circulated for a 31-day public review beginning September 14, 2018 and closed on October 15, 2018 (SCH No. 2018091029). All written comments received on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period, responses to the comments, and any revisions to the Draft IS/MND have been incorporated into this Final IS/MND.
This Final IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA guidelines. The purpose of the Final IS/MND is to provide the decision-making body, in this case the District, public and quasi-public agencies and groups, and the general public environmental impact information relative to the proposed project. The District will consider the information contained in this Final IS/MND prior to approving the project.
The Final IS/MND includes the Draft IS/MND, Technical Appendices, and copies of each public letter commenting on the Draft IS/MND and the District’s responses thereto. Public comments and the District’s responses are included in Appendix I of the Final IS/MND. Each public comment is assigned a comment number that corresponds to a response number. The Final IS/MND contains minor revisions, including clarifications and corrections. Where changes have been made to the Final IS/MND as a result of public comment, such revision is noted in the response to the comment (using strikeout/underline in the response to specify changed text) and indicated in the Final IS/MND by an outside margin line.
Comments were received during public review of the Draft IS/MND regarding the potential impacts associated with aesthetics/visual resources, air quality, biological resources, historic resources, hazards, hydrology/water quality, construction noise, recreation, traffic, and cumulative projects. The District has refined mitigation measures CFMP Aes-1, ECAWP Bio-2, ECAWP Bio-5, CFMP Bio-1B, CFMP Bio-1H, CFMP Bio-1K, CFMP Bio-2A, CFMP Bio-3B, ECAWP Haz-1, and ECAWP Tra-1 to provide additional clarification on the implementation of these measures. Clarifications were made within Section 2, Project Description with regard to best management practices and project approvals. Section 3, Evaluation of Project Impacts, includes minor revisions in the following subsections: Sections I, Aesthetics; Section IV, Biological Resources; Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section X, Land Use and Planning; Section XII, Noise; Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic; and Section XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance.
No new information has been presented in the Final IS/MND that would require recirculation of the Draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). Specifically, no new significant environmental impacts would result from the project or from new mitigation measures proposed for implementation. The IS/MND would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. In addition, while mitigation measures have been refined based on public comments received during public review to clarify how potential impacts would be reduced, no new mitigation measures considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft IS/MND have been identified that would clearly lessen any significant project impacts. Finally, the Draft IS/MND included adequate information for a meaningful public review and comment.
The Final IS/MND also includes the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, appended to this document as Appendix J.
F-1 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
This page intentionally left blank
F-2 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title East County Advanced Water Purification (ECAWP) Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Padre Dam Municipal Water District (District) 9300 Fanita Parkway, Santee, California, 92071 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mark Niemiec (619) 258-4766 4. Project Location: Project components are proposed within the City of Santee and the unincorporated community of Lakeside, San Diego County. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and See #2 above Address: 6. General Plan Designation: Various 7. Zoning: Various 8. Description of Project: The proposed ECAWP Project involves the expansion of existing wastewater and recycled water facilities and the construction of new facilities. See Section 2, Project Description, for a detailed description of the proposed project. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Section 2 10. Other public agencies whose See Section 2 approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? No California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area have requested consultation pursuant to AB 52. However, in compliance with their Sacred Resources Policy, the District’s Native American liaison has quarterly meetings with the tribal council of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Discussion topics at these quarterly meetings include the proposed project.
1 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Quality Emissions Materials Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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.
9/13/18 Signature Date
Mark Niemiec, P.E. Padre Dam Municipal Water District Printed Name For
2 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides a description of the East County Advanced Water Purification (ECAWP) Project, including discussion of the background, proposed project components, location and surrounding land uses, and required agency approvals.
Project Background
The Padre Dam Municipal Water District (District) provides water, wastewater, and recycled water services to areas northeast of the City of San Diego (Figure 1, Regional Location). Specifically, the District serves approximately 100,000 residents within the City of Santee (Santee), a small portion of the City of El Cajon (El Cajon), and a small portion of the unincorporated community of Lakeside in the Western Service Area (WSA), and within the unincorporated areas of Flinn Springs, Harbison Canyon, Blossom Valley, Alpine, Dehesa, and Crest in the Eastern Service Area (ESA). The ESA is separated from the WSA by Lakeside and portions of El Cajon. The ESA is provided only potable water service, whereas the WSA is provided potable water, wastewater, and recycled water services. The District provides wastewater treatment services at the Ray Stoyer Water Recycling Facility (WRF) to customers within the WSA.
The Ray Stoyer WRF treats 2 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater generated within the WSA and produces 1.8 mgd of recycled water for non-potable reuse. The remainder of the wastewater generated in the WSA is conveyed to the City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater System (Metro) to be treated at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWWTP) and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. The Ray Stoyer WRF produces recycled water that meets the requirements for non-potable reuse as specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The recycled water is currently delivered to over 200 customers, mostly within Santee, and is used primarily for landscape irrigation for schools, street medians, and other commercial and residential uses. Recycled water is also delivered to customers adjacent to, but outside of, the WSA such as the Sycamore Landfill, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), small portions of the City of El Cajon, and small portions of the City of San Diego.
Recycled water is also delivered to the Santee Lakes Recreation Preserve (Santee Lakes), which is owned and operated by the District. Recycled water is dechlorinated and released into the Santee Lakes to maintain stable lake water levels year-round. This water eventually flows by gravity southward through all seven lakes before being discharged, if necessary, into Sycamore Creek, which ultimately discharges into the San Diego River. Discharges into Sycamore Creek are limited to an average monthly rate of 2 mgd, per requirements of the District’s Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Order No. R9-2015-0002, NPDES No. CA0107492).
The District is planning to implement the ECAWP Project to increase water supply reliability. It is the District’s goal that the ECAWP Project ultimately produces up to 30 percent of East San Diego County’s (East County) potable water supply, which would reduce reliance on imported water and provide a drought-resistant and locally controlled water supply to the East County.
To develop and evaluate alternatives for increasing recycled water availability and use within the East County, four East County agencies (the District, Helix Water District, County of San Diego, and El Cajon) have been collaborating with regard to the ECAWP Project, as listed in Table 1, Participating Agencies for the East County Advanced Water Purification Project. The District completed a regional planning
3 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 study as part of this collaborative partnership which evaluated the feasibility to capture wastewater generated within the East County and develop a potable reuse project to produce a drought-resistant and locally controlled water supply for the region (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2016). The participating agencies currently generate approximately 14.5 mgd of wastewater. Most of this wastewater is transported to PLWWTP to be treated and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. The ECAWP Project would treat the wastewater locally and recycle the water using state-of-the-art technology to create a safe, sustainable supply of drinking water for the region. The ECAWP Project would reduce flows and solids loading to the PLWWTP for treatment. This diversion of flows from the PLWWTP would have a direct beneficial effect on overall plant discharge. Diverting wastewater from the PLWWTP would help reduce the total suspended solids (TSS) discharged by the PLWWTP to the same or lower levels as would be achieved by implementing secondary treatment at the full plant capacity (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2016).
Three potential reuse strategies were evaluated in the regional planning study: non-potable recycled water use, potable reuse through a groundwater replenishment and reuse project (GRRP), and potable reuse through surface water augmentation (SWA). The ECAWP Project components evaluated in this document are associated with expanded wastewater treatment capacity and potable reuse through SWA and are described below under Project Characteristics.
Table 1 PARTICIPATING AGENCIES FOR THE EAST COUNTY ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION PROJECT
Water/ Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater and Agency Areas Served Services Supply Recycled Water Padre Dam Water, wastewater, Santee, El Cajon, Lakeside, 100% imported 40% recycled Municipal Water and recycled water Flinn Springs, Harbison 60% discharged to District1 Canyon, Blossom Valley, Metro facilities Alpine, Dehesa, and Crest Helix Water Water La Mesa, El Cajon, Lemon 85% imported N/A District Grove, Spring Valley, and 15% local various unincorporated areas near El Cajon County of San Wastewater Unincorporated County Padre Dam MWD 100% discharged Diego collection areas (Alpine, Lakeside, provides service to Metro facilities and Winter Gardens) to Alpine and Helix Water District provides service to Lakeside and Winter Gardens. City of El Cajon Wastewater City of El Cajon Provided by Helix 100% discharged collection Water District to Metro facilities Source: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2016
1 Lead Agency for the proposed project.
4 East County Advanced Water Purification Project RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ORANGE SAN DIEGO Vail Lake COUNTY COUNTY
FALLBROOK CAMP PENDLETON
O'Neill Lake
WARNER SPRINGS
Lake Henshaw
OCEANSIDE VISTA
Lake Wohlford
SAN MARCOS ESCONDIDO CARLSBAD Sutherland Reservoir Lake San Marcos
JULIAN ENCINITAS Lake Hodges Lake Ramona RAMONA Lake Poway SOLANA BEACH POWAY DEL MAR San Vicente Reservoir
Miramar Reservoir Western Service Area El Capitan Reservoir Project Site Pacific Eastern Service Area Santee SANTEE Ocean Lakes Lake LA Jennings JOLLA ALPINE Lake EL CAJON Murray Loveland Reservoir SAN LA MESA DIEGO LEMON GROVE Barrett Lake CORONADO Sweetwater NATIONAL Reservoir S a CITY n D i Otay e g o Reservoir DULZURA B a CHULA VISTA y
Project Boundary IMPERIAL OTAY BEACH Service Area UNITED STATES MEXICO TIJUANA I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig1_Regional.mxd KJC-24 7/31/2018 - EV Source: Base Map Layers (SanGIS, 2016) 0 8 Miles
Regional Location Figure 1 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Project Characteristics
The regional planning study proposed a three-phase implementation for the ECAWP Project; however, the four East County agencies are currently considering an approach that would combine the first two phases of the ECAWP Project into a single, initial phase.
The proposed project would include the following components:
• Upgrades to the existing influent pump station (IPS); • Expansion of the Ray Stoyer WRF up to 18 mgd annual average capacity; • Construction of new Solids Handling and Energy Recovery Facilities (SHERF); • Construction of an Advanced Water Treatment Plant (AWTP) Facility of up to 11.5 mgd average annual capacity; • Construction of facilities to convey purified water from the AWTP Facility to Lake Jennings, which is owned and operated by Helix Water District; and, • Modifications to the East Mission Gorge (EMG) Pump Station and construction of a force main, and a Residuals Bypass System.
Potential future expansion of the Ray Stoyer WRF of up to 21 mgd annual average capacity and of the AWTP Facility up to 15.5 mgd annual average capacity could occur, however, this would depend on the future growth in the ECAWP service area and would undergo environmental review separately if and when the District determines additional expansion is necessary. Components of the proposed project are shown in Figure 2, Project Location, and Figure 3, Construction Techniques, and are described in detail below.
Influent Pump Station
The existing IPS controls the flow of wastewater from the WSA and from a small area within the County through two separate sets of pumps: a low-head pumping system to convey flows to Metro and a high- head pumping system to convey flows to the Ray Stoyer WRF. Proposed improvements to the IPS would primarily involve modifications to existing facilities to increase the capacity of the high-head pumping system. The pumping and piping configuration in the pump station may be changed to single stage pumping with two different sets of pumps, and the low-head pumps may be upsized depending on results of the ongoing wet weather flow analysis. Existing electrical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), odor control, surge protection, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems would also be upgraded. Additionally, a new chemical storage area is proposed.
Improvements at the IPS would potentially include the following activities:
• Replace two existing 150-horsepower (hp) high lift pumps with three 250-hp (estimated) pumps • Replace four 50-hp low lift pumps with two 200-hp (estimated) pumps • Add two wet-well wall penetrations to provide suction to the new pumps • Replace pump suction and discharge piping within the pump station with new piping • Replace the existing flow meters, valves, and appurtenances associated with the pumps
5 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
• Electrical lighting upgrades • Electrical equipment removal and replacement (pump variable frequency drives) • SCADA and control system removal and replacement • Replace/upgrade the existing 500-kilowatt (kW) emergency generator with a 1000-kW generator within the constraints of the site and modify the existing equipment pad as needed • Odor control system modifications as needed • Replace/upgrade the existing surge protection system • Installation of ferric chloride chemical storage tank and metering pump • Removal of miscellaneous unused equipment and equipment replacement from within the interior of the IPS
Ray Stoyer WRF Expansion
The major improvements to the Ray Stoyer WRF would be completed within the limits of the existing Ray Stoyer WRF facility, which includes the current location of the existing WRF and Pond A (Figure 2). The expansion would increase the Ray Stoyer WRF wastewater treatment average annual capacity from 2 mgd up to a maximum of 18 mgd. The proposed expansion would require Pond A to be dewatered and filled in, demolition of existing structures, and the construction of new equipment and facilities, including a headworks building, odor control building, an additional generator building, primary and secondary clarifiers, bioreactors, an equalization basin, a blower building, a tertiary pump station, maintenance and operations buildings, chlorine contact tanks, electrical buildings and tertiary filters (Figure 4, Ray Stoyer WRF Conceptual Site Plan).
Solids Handling and Energy Recovery Facility
The proposed SHERF would receive and process the primary and waste activated sludge from the Ray Stoyer WRF. The sludge would be thickened to reduce total volume before being fed to anaerobic digesters for solids stabilization and production of Class B biosolids.2 The stabilized solids would then be dewatered for further reduction in volume and discharged to biosolids trucks for hauling offsite. A portion of the generated biogas would be utilized in the boilers for heating the digesters, with the excess biogas being flared on-site within a metal cylindrical enclosure.
Construction of the SHERF would involve the demolition of existing structures and the construction of new structures including a solids thickening and dewatering building, digesters, a digester control building, a waste gas burner, provisions for a future high strength waste receiving station, and a gas conditioning and cogeneration building.
Advanced Water Treatment Plant Facility
The proposed AWTP Facility would provide full advanced treatment of up to 11.5 mgd (annual average) of recycled water for SWA. The AWTP Facility would include a visitor center, process building, chemical
2 Class B biosolids is a designation for treated sewage sludge that meets USEPA guidelines for certain land applications.
6 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Project Area
A P Pipeline
East Mission or e Force Main Ali nment Solids Handling and Energy Recovery Facilities esiduals Bypass System Pipeline Pond A ay Stoyer F, SHE F, A P Facility
Ray Stoyer Dec lorination Facility Site Pond B Water Recycling Facility Lake ennin s nlet
Lake ennin s Air Curtain Pond C Advanced Water Lake ennin s Air Supply Line Treatment Plant !( esiduals Bypass System Lift Station
San Diego River SANTEE
SAN DIEGO CITY Planned Fanita Hanson Dechlorination Ranch Development Pond Facility El Capitan High Lake 7 ! SANTEE
Lake 6 Lake Jennings Park Road ! Mapleview Street Sycamore Canyon Lake Jennings Inlet Elementry SANTEE Riverside Drive AWP Pipeline Water Feature Maine Avenue
Residuals Bypass System Pipeline SAN DIEGO COUNTY Santee Lakes Lake 5 Air Supply Line and Air Curtain Santana High A¦ Julian Avenue Lakeside ! Mast Boulevard Lake Aeration Blower Jennings Tierra del Sol Building and Generator Lake 4 Middle ! Lake 3 ! Town Center R.M. Levy Water East Mission Gorge Force Main Community Park Lake 2 Treatment Plant Los Coches Road West Hills Residuals Bypass System Lift Station High ! San Diego River WINTER Lake 1 !( Influent Pump Station WinterGardens Boulevard GARDENS Mast Park Carlton Oaks Drive San Diego River
Carlton Oaks East Mission Gorge Pump Station Country Club Magnolia Avenue SAN DIEGO Mission Gorge Road !"_$ ?n
CuyamacaStreet Aä I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig2_ProjectLocation.mxd KJC-24 11/16/2018 -EV Source: Base Layers, SanGIS 2017 0 2,500 Feet K
Project Location Figure 2 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Project Area AWP Pipeline East Mission Gorge Force Main Alignment Ray Stoyer WRF, SHERF, AWTP Facility Construction Method Construction Method Lake Jennings Inlet Water Feature Open-Cut Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Trenchless Solids Handling and ! ! ! ! Energy Recovery Facilities Dechlorination Facility Site Jack & Bore ! Open-Cut
Pond A Lake Jennings Air Curtain Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Trenchless Residuals Bypass System Pipeline
! ! Construction Method
! Lake Jennings Air Supply Line HDD Staging Area
! !
! ! ! ! Ray Stoyer ! ! !
! !( Above Grade Open-Cut
Pond B ! Water Recycling Facility Residuals Bypass System Lift Station !
! ! Through Existing El Monte Tunnel Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) Trenchless ! !
Pond C ! Sliplining
! Water Feature
!
! Advanced Water #
! Sliplining Access Pits
! Treatment Plant !
#!
!
!
!
! !
! San Diego River SANTEE HDD Staging Areas
#! ! SAN DIEGO CITY
! Planned Fanita
! Hanson Dechlorination ! Ranch Development Facility ! Pond ! El Capitan # ! High ! Lake 7 ! ! ! SANTEE
!
! Lake 6 ! Lake Jennings Park Road # ! Mapleview Street ! Sycamore Canyon
! Lake Jennings Inlet
SANTEE Riverside Drive
! Elementry AWP Pipeline Water Feature !
Maine Avenue
!
! ! Residuals Bypass System Pipeline SAN DIEGO COUNTY
# !
Santee # ! Lakes ! Air Supply Line and Air Curtain Lake 5 !
# !
! Santana High A¦
! !
! Mast Boulevard Julian Avenue Lakeside Lake
# !
! Jennings Aeration Blower !!!!#! ! HDD Staging Areas Tierra del Sol
!
!
Lake 4 ! Middle Building and Generator ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
Lake 3 !
!
! ! ! Town Center
! ! East Mission Gorge Force Main R.M. Levy Water ! Community Park
!
! Treatment Plant !
Lake 2 ! Los Coches Road !
West Hills ! Residuals Bypass System Lift Station !
! ! San Diego River
High ! WINTER !
WinterGardens Boulevard
! Influent Pump Station Lake 1 !( GARDENS Mast Park Carlton Oaks Drive San Diego River
Carlton Oaks East Mission Gorge Pump Station Country Club Magnolia Avenue SAN DIEGO Mission Gorge Road !"_$ ?n
CuyamacaStreet Aä I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig3_ConstructionTechniques.mxd KJC-24 11/16/2018 -EV Source: Base Layers, SanGIS 2017 0 2,500 Feet K
Construction Techniques Figure 3 East County Advanced Water Purification Project
East Mission or e Force Main Ali nment
A P Pipeline Ali nment
Planned Fanita anc Development
EXISTING OPERATIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY EMGFM EMERGENCY BUILDING SOLIDS THICKENING AND BYPASS TO WRF PLANT 1 DEWATERING BUILDING
EMERGENCY DIVERSION VAULT DIGESTERS TERTIARY FILTERS METHANOL TANK BIOREACTORS HEADWORKS RESERVED FOR FUTURE PROPERTY BOUNDARY SECONDARY CLARIFIERS PRIMARY CLARIFIERS ODOR BMP / DETENTION POND CONTROL R&D FACILITY TERTIARY INFLUENT PUMP STATION (RELOCATED DEMONSTRATION FACILITY) CHEMICAL FACILITY
STORMWATER PUMP STATION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING PARKING LOT HIGH STRENGTH WASTE RECEIVING STATION EXISTING PRIMARY CLARIFIERS OPERATIONS BUILDING EQUALIZATION EXISTING AERATION BASINS BASIN DIGESTER CONTROL TITLE 22 WATER BUILDING TO AWP FACILITY BLOWER EXISTING RAY STOYER WATER NEW ACCESS ROAD RAY STOYER WATER RECLAMATION CHLORINE DISINFECTION BUILDING RECYCLINGFACILITY (WRF) PLANTFACILITY 1 CONTACT TANK CHEMICAL FACILITY EXISTING ACCESS ROAD NEW ACCESS ROAD EXISTING ACCESS ROAD PLANT WATER PUMP STATION EXISTING SECONDARY TO AWP FACILITY GAS CONDITIONING AND CLARIFIERS COGENERATION BUILDING PROPERTY BOUNDARY PRIMARY SLUDGE EXPANDEDWATER RECLAMATION RAY STOYER FACILITY WATER TO SHERF (WRF) - PLANT 2 SOLIDS HANDLING AND ADVANCEDADVANCED WATER WATER PURIFICATION PURIFICATION (AWP) FACILITY (AWP) FACILITY RECYCLING FACILITY SOLIDS HANDLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY FACILITY (SHERF)(SHERF) EXISTING ACCESS ROAD
PROPOSED VISITOR CENTER
Planned Fanita Ranch Development I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig4_RayStoyerWRF.mxd KJC-24 9/11/2018 -EV Source: Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2018 0 250 Feet
Ray Stoyer WRF Conceptual Site Plan Figure 4 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 storage, maintenance and electrical buildings, process tanks, and pump stations. These facilities would be located at the site of Pond B, which would be dewatered and filled in. The existing Advanced Water Purification demonstration facility is proposed to be relocated and repurposed as a research and development (R&D) facility at the AWTP Facility site.
Advanced Water Purification Pipeline
The proposed Advanced Water Purification (AWP) Pipeline from the AWTP Facility to Lake Jennings would be 24 inches in diameter and approximately 10.2 miles long (54,000 linear feet). Construction methods would include conventional open-cut, above-ground, installation in an existing tunnel, and trenchless methods such as horizontal directional drilling, jack and bore, or similar methods (refer to Figure 3. The pipeline would route from the AWTP Facility, to the dechlorination facility (described below), and then to the Lake Jennings inlet as shown in Figure 2 and described in the Project Location section below. The 24-inch diameter pipeline would have an approximate length of 2,400 feet from the dechlorination facility to the cascading water feature at the Lake Jennings inlet, with approximately 900 feet of the pipeline replacing existing above-ground water facilities (pipeline and saddle supports), approximately 1,100 feet of new above-ground pipeline between where the existing pipeline ends and the entrance to the existing El Monte Tunnel, and approximately 400 feet of the pipeline routed through the existing El Monte Tunnel (Figure 5, AWP Pipeline Alignment to Lake Jennings, Lake Jennings Inlet, and Air Dispersion System). It is anticipated that up to three work areas would be under construction at any given time, with a total production rate of approximately 30 to 40 feet per work area per day for a total production rate of approximately 90 to 120 linear feet per day.
Dechlorination Facility
Before discharging to Lake Jennings, the proposed AWP Pipeline would convey flows through a proposed dechlorination facility to remove residual chlorine present in the purified water. Construction of the dechlorination facility would involve the demolition of the existing 3,000-square-foot (SF) El Monte Pumphouse located at the El Monte Pump Station on El Monte Road (Figure 6, Proposed Dechlorination Facility).
Lake Jennings Facilities
As described above, the proposed AWP Pipeline would convey flows from the proposed dechlorination facility to the proposed inlet at Lake Jennings (Figure 7a, Conceptual View of Lake Jennings Inlet Water Feature). The purified water would enter Lake Jennings at the inlet via a 220- to 300-foot-long cascading water feature (Figure 7b, Conceptual View of Lake Jennings Inlet).
On the west side of Lake Jennings, an air curtain consisting of new compressors and air supply lines at the bottom of the lake would be installed to promote mixing in the lake (Figure 5). A new building containing two 200-hp aeration blowers would be constructed next to an existing building on the western shoreline. Power to the building would be provided by SDG&E and a new 250-kW generator would be installed to provide backup power to the compressors (Figure 8, Conceptual View of Aeration Blower Building and Generator).
East Mission Gorge Pump Station Modifications and Force Main
The EMG Pump Station is an existing City of San Diego facility that currently conveys wastewater from East San Diego County to the North Mission Valley Interceptor, which ultimately flows to the PLWWTP.
7 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
The project proposes modifications to existing facilities at the EMG Pump Station and construction of a new force main to deliver an average daily flow of 9.0 mgd of wastewater to the Ray Stoyer WRF (Figure 9, EMG Force Main, Pump Station, and Residuals Bypass System).
Construction at the EMG Pump Station would include the following activities:
• Removal of miscellaneous unused equipment and equipment replacement from within the interior of the EMG Pump Station • The existing concrete metering vault may be modified or removed and replaced to facilitate wastewater flow and discharge flow metering to the new EMG force main • The existing diversion structure will either be replaced with a new diversion structure, or the existing structure may be modified in place • Removal of four existing 500 hp wastewater pumps and replacement with four new 600 hp (estimated) pumps • Removal and replacement of existing bar screens • Electrical lighting upgrades • Electrical equipment removal and replacement (pump variable frequency drives) • Control system removal and replacement • Emergency generator installation and construction of associated pads and electrical work • Odor control system modifications • Surge protection system modifications • Chemical metering pump removal and replacement • Piping modifications, valve and appurtenance removal and replacement
The proposed force main from the EMG Pump Station would be 30 inches in diameter and approximately 18,200 feet long and would convey wastewater flows to the expanded Ray Stoyer WRF. Construction methods would be trenchless such as horizontal directional drilling or similar methods from the EMG Pump Station to the paved road to the west side of Lake 1 of Santee Lakes. Conventional open-cut construction methods would be used for the remaining proposed alignment from west of Lake 1 to the Ray Stoyer WRF. It is anticipated that construction of the force main would have a production rate of approximately 80 feet per day.
Residuals Bypass System
The proposed Residuals Bypass System would discharge brine from the AWTP Facility and centrate from the SHERF (collectively referred to as residuals) directly to Metro facilities via the East Mission Gorge Interceptor downstream from the EMG Pump Station. The Residuals Bypass System pipeline would include sliplining of approximately 8,800 feet of the existing 24-inch sludge line in Sycamore Canyon Road, new construction of approximately 3,100 feet of 16-inch diameter gravity pipeline that would be constructed using conventional open-cut, and new construction of approximately 3,500 feet of 12-inch diameter force main that would be constructed using trenchless methods such as horizontal directional drilling or a similar method (see Figure 9). Areas where existing manholes are located in Sycamore
8 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Proposed AWP Pipeline Photo Location/Direction El Monte Pump House Potential Staging Location Construction Access Roads Lake Jennings Project Limits of Disturbance Dechlorination Facility Site See Figure 7b for View AWP Pipeline Alignment Construction Method Open-Cut Above Grade
See Figure 7a for View Half Moon Through Flume Tunnel Cove Proposed Lake Jennings Inlet
Water Feature
El Monte Road Eagle Point Lake Jennings Park Road
Bass Drive
Lakeshore Drive Hermit Cove Proposed Air Supply Line
Proposed Air Curtain Julian Avenue Proposed Aeration Blower Building and Generator
L a k e J e n nings
R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plant I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig5_Alignment_LakeJennings.mxd KJC-24 8/30/2018 -EV Source: Base Layers (SanGIS 2017) 0 700 Feet
AWP Pipeline to Lake Jennings, Lake Jennings Inlet, and Air Dispersion System Figure 5 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Dechlorination Facility Site Potential Staging Area AWP Pipeline Alignment Construction Method Open-Cut Above Grade
El Monte Pump House
El Monte Road
Helix Water District Pump Station I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig6_DechlorinationFacility.mxd KJC-24 9/11/2018 -EV Source: Base Layers (SanGIS 2017) 0 100 Feet
Proposed Dechlorination Facility Figure 6 East County Advanced Water Purification Project KJC-24.01 5/09/18 -RK ents\20180312_CEQA_LakeJenningsAWPDischarge\Figure3A_LakeJenningsInletRendering.mxd ents\20180312_CEQA_LakeJenningsAWPDischarge\Figure3A_LakeJenningsInletRendering.mxd
(!1 EXISTING VIEW View of proposed waterPROPOSED feature from CONCEPTUAL west side of RENDERING north fork looking northeast. Standing on Westside of North Fork Looking Northeast (!1 Standing on Westside of North Fork Looking Northeast \\sfoisgdata\Z_drive\Projects\PadreDamMunicipalWaterDistrict\Ev Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Padre Dam Municipal Water District CEQA Package #3 I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig7a_ConceptualView_WaterFeature.indd Proposed LakeSource: Jennings Kennedy/Jenks Inlet 2018 Existing Site and Conceptual Rendering 1
Conceptual View of Lake JenningsK/J 1744105.02 Inlet Water FeatureMarch 2018 Figure 3A Figure 7a East County Advanced Water Purification Project KJC-24.01 5/09/18 -RK ents\20180312_CEQA_LakeJenningsAWPDischarge\Figure3B_LakeJenningsInletRendering.mxd ents\20180312_CEQA_LakeJenningsAWPDischarge\Figure3B_LakeJenningsInletRendering.mxd
View of Lake JenningsPROPOSED inlet from CONCEPTUAL north side of RENDERING north fork looking south. EXISTING VIEW (!3 (!3 Standing on Northside of North Fork Looking South Standing on Northside of North Fork Looking South \\sfoisgdata\Z_drive\Projects\PadreDamMunicipalWaterDistrict\Ev I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig7b_ConceptualView_Inlet.indd Kennedy/JenksSource: Consultants Kennedy/Jenks 2018 Padre Dam Municipal Water District CEQA Package #3
Conceptual View of LakeProposed Jennings Lake Jennings Inlet Inlet Existing Site and Conceptual Rendering 2 Figure 7b K/J 1744105.02 March 2018 Figure 3B East County Advanced Water Purification Project
(E) Building
(N) Aeration Building
(N) Generator KJC-24.01 5/09/18 -RK
View of aeration blower building and generator from west side of lake looking southwest. !2 EXISTING VIEW PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL RENDERING ( Westside of Lake Looking Southwest (!2 Westside of Lake Looking Southwest \\sfoisgdata\Z_drive\Projects\PadreDamMunicipalWaterDistrict\Events\20180312_CEQA_LakeJenningsAWPDischarge\Figure4_AerationBlowerBldg&GeneratorConceptualRendering.mxd \\sfoisgdata\Z_drive\Projects\PadreDamMunicipalWaterDistrict\Events\20180312_CEQA_LakeJenningsAWPDischarge\Figure4_AerationBlowerBldg&GeneratorConceptualRendering.mxd Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Padre Dam Municipal Water District CEQA Package #3 Proposed Lake Jennings
I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig8_AerationBlower.indd Aeration Blower Bldg. and Generator Source:Conceptual Kennedy/Jenks 2018 Rendering K/J 1744105.02 March 2018 Conceptual View of Aeration Building and Generator Figure 4 Figure 8 s oun y d nced er uri ic ion ro ec F S F y S oyer er ecyc ing F ci i y F i i s o is ur nce nd S ging esidu s y ss Sys e i S ion Pond A East Mission Gorge Force Main (EMGFM) Alignment Construction Method ori on irec ion ri ing renc ess en u Pond B Residuals Bypass System Pipeline Construction Method ori on irec ion ri ing renc ess Pond C en u S i ining ccess i s
Birchcrest Boulevard SAN DIEGOSANTEE
Sycamore Canyon Road
Ganley Road
Lake 7
Lake 6
Pebble Beach Drive
Lake 5
Santee Lakes Lake Canyon Road
Carlton Hills Boulevard
Lake 4
Lake 3 Fanita Parkway Fanita Lake 2 Mast Boulevard
Lake 1 Residuals Bypass System Lift Station
Rumson Drive Mast Park Carlton Oaks Drive
San Diego River
Influent Pump Station
CuyamacaStreet Carlton Oaks Country Club Mission Gorge Road SAN DIEGO
East Mission Gorge Pump Station I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig9_EMGFM.mxd KJC-24 7/31/2018 -EV Source: se yers S n S 201 0 1 200 Fee
EMG Force Main, Pump Station, and Residuals Bypass System Figure East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Canyon Road would be utilized as sliplining access pits, with one additional new manhole proposed between Lake 3 and Lake 4. The pits would be 5 feet wide by 30 feet long. It is anticipated that wastewater flow in the bypass pipeline may require pumping to improve hydraulics; therefore, a 50-SF lift station consisting of two 30-hp pumps (one active and one backup pump) is proposed.
The District is also actively working and coordinating with the City of San Diego on a long-term residuals management strategy. It is anticipated that following the development and adoption of a Comprehensive Residuals Management Plan, the City and the District would enter into an agreement to implement the Plan to avoid and/or minimize potential effects to the Metro System facilities.
Construction Equipment and Sequencing
Construction equipment would be used at multiple locations, including at the IPS, District facilities located north of the Santee Lakes (Ray Stoyer WRF, AWTP Facility, and SHERF), at Santee Lakes, at Lake Jennings, and along the pipeline alignments. Excavators, loaders, forklifts, pavers, generators, rollers, air compressors, backhoes, dozers, dump trucks, compactors, bore/drill rigs, welders, pumps, and cranes would be the primary equipment used for project construction. Construction techniques for the pipelines would include a variety of above- and below-ground methods depending on the component, including open-cut trenching, sliplining, and trenchless methods. Excavation would be required to install foundations for the expansion of the facilities and construction of new facilities including new WRF basins.
Based on preliminary findings of the geotechnical investigations for the proposed project, rock excavation is anticipated along several areas of the AWP Pipeline alignment and during construction of the EMG project components and Residuals Bypass System. The ease, or difficulty, of excavating the rock would depend on if the rock encountered is fractured or not. Rock that is not fractured and has a high compressive strength is considered non-rippable and may require mechanical means or controlled blasting to remove. It is anticipated that rock encountered which is non-rippable would be excavated utilizing mechanical means such as a hydraulically operated rock breaker or a rock breaker in combination with a rotary cutting head or rock drill. However, if the rock cannot be excavated utilizing mechanical means, controlled blasting would be required. At the current stage of planning, exact blasting requirements are unknown, including the associated quantities of blasts, blast fuel, holes per blast and area per blast.
Disturbed areas would be watered during grading activities to retain dust within the property line in compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. Additionally, in accordance with the County’s Vector Control Program, the project would:
• Be constructed in a manner to minimize standing water resulting from construction-related depressions created by grading activities and vehicle tires, tree pits, and landscaping.
• Ensure BMPs and drainage areas do not create a potential mosquito breeding source (an area capable of holding at least a half-inch of water for more than 96 hours).
Other construction assumptions, including for earthwork and building square footage to be demolished or constructed, are included in Appendix A, Project Information Summary Tables.
The total duration for project construction would be approximately four years (2021 through 2025). Sequencing of individual components may vary, depending on availability of funding and anticipated
9 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
demand. For the purposes of analysis, an anticipated construction schedule, duration, and equipment list for each project component is provided in Table 2, Construction Schedule and Equipment.
Table 2 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND EQUIPMENT
Project Construction Period Activity Equipment Component Start End 1 Crane, 1 Forklift, November December Demolition Influent Pump 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 2022 Station 1 Crane, 1 Forklift, 1 Excavator, December October Construction 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 2023 Dewatering and Utility 1 Bore/Drill Rig, 1 Generator, September July 2021 Relocations 1 Excavator, 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 Pavement 1 Concrete Saw, 3 Excavators, September July 2021 Removal/Excavation 2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 2 Excavators, September Pipe Installation/Backfill July 2021 2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 1 Excavator, 1 Generator, September AWP Pipeline Jacking and Receiving Pit July 2021 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2021 and Lake 1 Bore/Drill Rig, 1 Crane, 1 Excavator, February Jennings Inlet Horizontal Directional Drill May 2022 1 Forklift, 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 Fuse/Weld Pipe 1 Generator, 1 Excavator, 1 Welder April 2022 May 2022 1 Generator, 1 Pump, 1 Excavator, Pipe Supports June 2022 July 2022 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 Skid-Steer Loader, 1 Excavator, Rip Rap Rock Feature at August 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Pump, July 2022 Lake Jennings 2022 1 Generator Buildings and Retaining October 1 Excavator, 1 Loader July 2022 Wall at Lake Jennings 2022 Generator, Electrical, 1 Crane, 1 Excavator, 1 Industrial Saw, AWP Pipeline October November Aeration Blowers, and Air 1 Loader, 1 Other Material Handling and Lake 2022 2022 Supply at Lake Jennings Equipment Jennings Inlet Pressure Test Pipeline and 1 Pump, 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, November (cont.) July 2022 Valve Installation 1 Generator, 1 Crane 2022 1 Paving Equipment, 2 Skid-Steer October February Paving Loaders, 5 Rollers, 1 Street Sweeper 2022 2023 October October Demolition 1 Crane, 1 Tractor/Loader Backhoe 2022 2022 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, October October Grading Dechlorination 1 Excavator, 1 Grader 2022 2022 Station 2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Excavator, 1 Crane, 1 Skid-Steer October February Construction Loader, 1 Plate Compactor, 1 Grader, 2022 2023 1 Generator, 1 Roller, 1 Paver
10 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Table 2 (cont.) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND EQUIPMENT
Project Construction Period Activity Equipment Component Start End October December Demolition 1 Loader, 1 Crane 2021 2021 2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Forklift, December February Grading 1 Excavator 2021 2022 Ray Stoyer WRF 2 Excavator, Expansion 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Skid- Steer Loader, 1 Paver, 2 Roller, February December Construction 2 Crane, 2 Forklift, 3 Generator, 2 Air 2022 2024 Compressor, 2 Plate Compactor, 2 Track Dozer, 2 Pump, 2 Scraper October December Demolition 1 Loader, 1 Crane 2021 2021 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Forklift, December February Grading 1 Crane 2021 2022 SHERF 2 Crane, 1 Off-Highway Truck, 3 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Forklift, January December Construction 3 Generator, 2 Pump, 1 Track Dozer, 1 2022 2025 Plate Compactor, 2 Scraper, 1 Skid- Steer Loader 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Forklift, October December Grading 1 Crane 2021 2021 3 Generator, 2 Crane, AWTP Facility 4 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Forklift, 1 December December Construction Skid-Steer Loader, 3 Pump, 2021 2024 2 Excavator, 2 Track Dozer, 2 Plate Compactor, 2 Scraper 1 Crane, 1 Forklift, 1 October October Demolition EMG Pump Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 2022 Station 1 Crane, 1 Forklift, 1 Excavator, October October Construction 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 2024 1 Generator, 1 Bore/Drill Rig, October Dewater/Utility Relocation June 2024 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Excavator 2022 Pavement Removal/Pipeline 1 Concrete Saw, 1 Excavator, October April 2024 Excavation 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2022 October Pipeline Installation/Backfill 1 Excavator, 2 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe July 2024 2022 1 Bore/Drill Rig, 1 Crane, 1 Generator, September Horizontal Directional Drill June 2023 1 Excavator, 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2023 EMG Force Main September September Fuse Pipe 1 Generator, 1 Excavator, 1 Welder 2023 2023 1 Generator, 1 Crane, 1 Excavator, Connection to EMG Pump 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Plate July 2024 July 2024 Station Compactor Pressure Test/Valve 1 Pump, 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, August July 2024 Installation 1 Generator, 1 Crane 2024 August October Paving 1 Paver, 1 Skid-Steer Loader, 2 Roller 2024 2024
11 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Table 2 (cont.) CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND EQUIPMENT
Project Construction Period Activity Equipment Component Start End 1 Generator, 1 Bore/Drill Rig, September Dewatering June 2024 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2023 Pavement Removal/Pipeline 1 Concrete Saw, 1 Excavator, September October Excavation 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2023 2023 October Pipe Installation/Backfill 1 Excavator, 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe June 2024 2023 1 Bore/Drill Rig, 1 Crane, 1 Generator, September November Horizontal Directional Drill 1 Excavator, 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2023 2023 Residuals Bypass November November System Pipeline Fuse Pipe 1 Generator, 1 Excavator, 1 Welder 2023 2023 1 Generator, 1 Crane, 1 Excavator, November January Connect Downstream 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Plate 2023 2024 Compactor 1 Pump, 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, August Pressure Test July 2024 1 Generator 2024 August October Paving 1 Paver, 1 Skid-Steer Loader, 2 Roller 2024 2024 1 Generator, 1 Bore/Drill Rig, November Residuals Bypass Dewatering May 2024 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 2023 System Lift 1 Crane, 1 Excavator, November Station Construction May 2024 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 1 Forklift 2023 Source: Kennedy/Jenks 2018 (further details regarding construction durations provided in Appendix A, Project Information Summary Tables)
Trenchless Construction Best Management Practices
To reduce potential for hydrofracture and inadvertent returns from trenchless construction activities, a Frac-Out Contingency Plan would be prepared and implemented, which may include, but not be limited to, the following construction best management practices:
• Sufficient earth cover to increase resistance to hydrofracture; • Use of an adequately dense drilling fluid to avoid travel of drilling fluid in porous sands; • Structurally stabilizing the bore to avoid collapse; • Maintaining a low enough borehole pressure to avoid hydrofracture; • Maintaining reaming and pullback rates slow enough to avoid over-pressurization of the bore; • Visually monitoring the surface above the vicinity of the drill head for surface evidence of hydrofracture; • Modifying drilling methods to suit site conditions such that hydrofracture does not occur; • Cleaning hydrofractures immediately after they occur; and • Keeping necessary response equipment readily accessible and in good working order.
12 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Construction Staging
Staging for construction of the IPS would be a previously disturbed, graded area within the District’s operations yard, west of Lake 1. Staging areas for the Ray Stoyer WRF expansion, SHERF, AWTP Facility, and Residuals Bypass System lift station would be in previously disturbed areas within the District’s property.
Construction staging of the EMG Pump Station and Force Main and Residuals Bypass System pipeline would be in previously disturbed areas within the existing EMG Pump Station footprint, the Santee Lakes property, the right-of-way limits of Fanita Parkway, and in previously disturbed areas within the District’s property near the Ray Stoyer WRF.
Staging areas for construction of the AWP pipeline from the AWTP facility to the dechlorination facility would be located within the rights-of-way and/or within previously disturbed areas along the roadway. The staging area for construction of the dechlorination facility would be the 1.54-acre property that contains the existing El Monte Pump Station which is owned by Helix Water District.
For AWP Pipeline work from the dechlorination facility to Lake Jennings and for construction of the Lake Jennings facilities, staging areas would include the 1.54-acre property that contains the existing El Monte Pump Station owned by Helix Water District and could also include areas within Helix Water District’s R. M. Levy Water Treatment Plant, areas east of the plant in a vacant lot adjacent to the lake, disturbed areas on the east side of the lake near Hermit Cove, and/or the parking area near Eagle Point (Figure 5).
Project Location
The proposed project site includes locations in Santee, the County of San Diego, and the unincorporated community of Lakeside (Figure 2).
The IPS is located at the District’s operations yard at 9120 Carlton Oaks Drive in Santee, which is approximately three miles south of the Ray Stoyer WRF property and immediately south of Santee Lakes. The IPS is accessed through a paved, gated entrance at Carlton Oaks Drive.
The existing Ray Stoyer WRF is located at 12001 Fanita Parkway in Santee, and the proposed construction and expansion of the Ray Stoyer WRF, the SHERF, and AWTP facility would be located immediately to the south. Access to these facilities is from Fanita Parkway via Sycamore Canyon Road which is a private asphalt road maintained by the District.
The proposed AWP Pipeline alignment would extend from the AWTP facility to the northernmost shoreline of Lake Jennings in Lakeside. The proposed AWP Pipeline alignment would follow Fanita Parkway southward from the proposed AWTP facility to the intersection with Mast Boulevard where it would then turn eastward and follow Mast Boulevard to the eastern Santee city limit. The AWP Pipeline alignment would continue eastward into the County on Mast Boulevard and Riverside Drive to Lakeside Avenue where it would then head north for approximately 0.2 miles and then eastward again where it would cross a dirt storage yard, the San Diego River corridor, and under State Route 67 (SR 67) into the unincorporated community of Lakeside. The alignment would then turn south towards the northern terminus of Vine Street and continue within the road towards the intersection with Mapleview Street where it would then turn east. At the terminus of Mapleview Street the alignment would continue eastward through open space until it reaches El Monte Road. The proposed alignment would follow
13 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
El Monte Road to the northeast for approximately 0.4 miles to the location of Helix Water District’s El Monte Pump Station site which is located approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the northern arm of Lake Jennings. At this location the AWP Pipeline would enter the proposed dechlorination facility and then continue above ground in an eastward/southeastern direction towards Lake Jennings. The AWP Pipeline would proceed through the existing El Monte Tunnel and terminate at or beyond the existing outlet of this tunnel. The proposed inlet and water feature would be located in Half Moon Cove on the north end of the northern arm of Lake Jennings (Figure 5). The proposed air curtain facilities would be located on Bass Drive at the western end of Lake Jennings and would extend into Lake Jennings.
The existing EMG Pump Station is located on Mission Gorge Road near the SR 52 westbound on-ramp just west of where SR 125 terminates at Mission Gorge Road. The proposed EMG Force Main would be constructed from the EMG Pump Station to the Ray Stoyer WRF which is approximately 3.5 miles north of the EMG Pump Station. The proposed EMG Force Main alignment would extend northward from the EMG Pump Station beneath the Carlton Oaks Golf Course and Carlton Oaks Drive to the west side of Lake 1 of the Santee Lakes. The alignment would continue north along the road west of Lakes 2 and 3, and then turn eastwards between Lakes 3 and 4 to Fanita Parkway. From there, the alignment would continue northward within the Fanita Parkway rights-of-way to the expanded Ray Stoyer WRF at Pond A.
The Residuals Bypass System would consist of a gravity pipeline, lift station, and force main. The Residuals Bypass System pipeline would be constructed via sliplining the in an existing sludge line within the Sycamore Canyon Road right-of way from the AWTP Facility to where it would turn westward between Lake 3 and Lake 4 of the Santee Lakes. The pipeline alignment would continue southward along the west side of Lake 1 to the proposed lift station. The force main would be constructed from the lift station beneath the Carlton Oaks Golf Course using trenchless methods, such as horizontal directional drilling, and would connect to the East Mission Gorge Interceptor just downstream of the EMG Pump Station.
Surrounding Land Uses
Ray Stoyer WRF, SHERF, AWTP Facility, and IPS
The proposed Fanita Ranch development project3 would include approximately 3,000 residential units in an area located adjacent to the project site to the northeast, east, and southeast of the Ray Stoyer WRF (refer to Figure 2; San Diego Union-Tribune 2017). There are established residential areas, as well as new residential development (i.e. Weston), to the south of the Ray Stoyer WRF. Sycamore Canyon Elementary School is located approximately 1.6 miles south of the Ray Stoyer WRF and approximately 1.25 miles north of the IPS. Carlton Hills Elementary School is to the southeast and West Hills High School is to the southwest of the Ray Stoyer WRF. Both schools are over 2.5 miles from the Ray Stoyer WRF and are approximately 0.5 miles from the IPS. Topographically, the Ray Stoyer WRF vicinity is bounded by a series of northwest-to-southeast trending ridgelines that create finger canyons. The Ray Stoyer WRF site is the most northerly developed area within the valley formed by these ridgelines. Immediately to the south are three holding ponds A, B and C, which hold the treated Title 22 recycled water produced by the Ray Stoyer WRF until it is released into the Santee Lakes, a series of seven lakes to the south of the holding ponds.
3 The most recently proposed Fanita Ranch development project application was submitted to the City of Santee but has not undergone environmental review and has not yet been approved.
14 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Land surrounding the Ray Stoyer WRF is currently undeveloped. The nearest developed land uses include single-family residential units located on the east side of Sycamore Canyon Road, with the northernmost houses located approximately adjacent to the southern end of the holding ponds. This is approximately 1,200 feet south of the proposed location for the AWTP Facility at Pond B. Camping at the Santee Lakes recreation area is located south of the holding ponds (on the west side of Sycamore Canyon Road). The northernmost camp site is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the southernmost holding pond. The IPS is located on District property at the District’s operations yard immediately south of the southernmost lake of the Santee Lakes. The District’s operations yard and IPS are surrounded by single-family residential uses to the west, east, and south.
AWP Pipeline to Lake Jennings
Land uses adjacent to the proposed AWP Pipeline alignment include open space, residential, commercial, and light industrial. Schools within 0.25 mile of the AWP Pipeline alignment include Sycamore Canyon School (10201 Settle Road, Santee), Santee KinderCare (9735 Cuyamaca Street, Santee), Santana High School (9915 Magnolia Avenue, Santee), Hill Creek School (9665 Jeremy Street, Santee), the Learning Academy (11646 Riverside Drive, Lakeside), Lakeside Farms Elementary (11915 Lakeside Avenue, Lakeside), and Foothills Christian Elementary School (10404 Lake Jennings Park Road, Lakeside). Two public hiking trails, the Lake Loop Trail and Flume Trail, intersect the proposed AWP Pipeline alignment near where it would inlet to Lake Jennings.
Dechlorination Facility, Inlet, and Air Curtain at Lake Jennings
Land surrounding the proposed dechlorination facility, inlet, and air curtain at Lake Jennings is primarily undeveloped open space. There is one single-family home located approximately 350 feet to the south of the El Monte Pumphouse, behind the Helix Water District Pump Station (refer to Figure 6). The Historic Flume Trail is a public hiking trail that begins at the El Monte Pump Station and follows a segment of an old flume that was built in the late 1800s. The Lake Jennings Trail is a public hiking trail that circles the lake and connects to the Lake Jennings Campground, which is located approximately 0.1 mile west of the lake near Half Moon Cove. The campground contains 91 campsites and provides outdoor recreation activities and access to the lake.
Residuals Bypass System and East Mission Gorge Pump Station and Force Main
Land uses surrounding the EMG Pump Station include the SR 52 and SR 125 rights-of-way, open space, and commercial. Residential land uses are located approximately 1,500 feet to the south and southwest behind Philip Thearle’s Autoworks auto body shop and El Monte RV Rentals on the south side of Mission Gorge Road. Land uses surrounding the proposed EMG Force Main alignment and Residuals Bypass System pipeline alignment include the existing EMG Pump Station, open space, Carlton Oaks Golf Course, residential, the District’s operations yard, and recreational uses at the Santee Lakes.
Prior Environmental Review
In 2017, the District prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan (CFMP; SCH #2015111014). The CFMP PEIR addressed the potential physical environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed CFMP projects, including the ECAWP Project. The Final PEIR for the CFMP was certified on May 3, 2017 (District 2017). The following analysis may tier from the CFMP PEIR as permitted and encouraged by the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) in Public Resources Code
15 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Section 21093. As in State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., §§15000 et seq.), Section 15152(a), the term “tiering” refers to “using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.” As a second-tier document, this Initial Study relies upon the analysis in the CFMP PEIR to determine whether or not the proposed project would result in potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21094, those effects which the Lead Agency determined were either mitigated or avoided pursuant to the findings of these EIRs or examined in sufficient detail to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided through implementation of mitigation measures or standard conditions, do not need to be addressed in this second-tier document. Rather, this analysis focuses on the environmental effects associated with development of the proposed project that were not evaluated at a project level in the CFMP PEIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15168 and 15162. This prior certified environmental document is herein incorporated by reference. This analysis contains information summarized from the prior document to facilitate the reader’s review of this document where appropriate. All referenced documents are available for review at the District’s headquarters at 9300 Fanita Parkway, Santee, California, 92071.
A portion of the project was analyzed in 2015 under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Ray Stoyer WRF expansion project. Facilities analyzed include the expansion of the existing IPS, expansion of the Ray Stoyer WRF from 2.0 to 6.0 mgd annual average capacity, and construction of up to a 2.2-mgd annual average capacity AWTP facility. The MND for the Ray Stoyer WRF Phase 1 Expansion project (SCH# 2015071078) was adopted in October 2015 (District 2015).
While components of the proposed project have been analyzed in prior CEQA documentation, details of project design have been refined and are analyzed at the project-level in this IS/MND.
Agency Approvals
The District is both the project proponent and the Lead Agency under CEQA. In its role as Lead Agency, the District is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of this IS/MND.
The District is seeking funding for the proposed project from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MWD) Local Resource Program. This is a discretionary program that provides funding for recycled water projects. The District is also pursuing a grant under the Local Water Supply Development Program, which is a discretionary program of the SDCWA that provides financial incentives for recycling water projects that reduce the demand for imported water. The District is also seeking financing from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program for the project.
Public agencies, other than the Lead Agency, that have discretionary authority over a project, are considered responsible agencies; therefore, MWD, SDCWA, and SWRCB are considered responsible agencies for the project. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project may require that the District obtain approval, permits, licenses, certifications, or other entitlements from various state, and local agencies, as shown in Table 3, Anticipated Regulatory Permits and Approvals.
16 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Table 3 ANTICIPATED REGULATORY PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency / Department Permit / Approval State Agencies State Water Resources Control National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Board (SWRCB), Regional Water Construction Activity Storm Water Permit SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009 Quality Control Board (RWQCB) DWQ (as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) Waste Discharge Requirements (Water Code 13000 et seq.) and/or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit NPDES Industrial Permit SWRCB Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ NPDES Groundwater Permit RWQCB Order No. R9-2015-0013 401 Certification (CWA, 33 USC 1341, if the project requires U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] 404 Permit) NPDES permit for discharge to Lake Jennings SWRCB Division of Drinking Water Domestic water supply permit for surface water augmentation using recycled water (SBDDW-16-02) California Department of Fish and California Endangered Species Act (California Public Resources Code Wildlife (CDFW) Section 30600) California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration California Department of Encroachment Permit (California Streets and Highways Code Transportation Sections 660 et seq.) California State Historic Review under Section 106 Consultation, National Historic Preservation Preservation Office Act and California Office of Historic Preservation (California Public Resources Code Sections 5024, 5024.5, 21083.2 – 21084.1) Local Agencies City of Santee Encroachment Permit County of San Diego Encroachment Permit Memorandum of Understanding Water well permit (San Diego County Code, Sections 67.401 through 67.424) “No rise” certification for work performed within mapped floodways (San Diego County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Section 811.506) Unified Program Facility Permit Certificate of Occupancy Helix Water District Memorandum of Understanding Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) Water Purchase Agreement between JPA and Helix Water District Sub-Water Purchase Agreement between JPA and Helix Water District City of San Diego Encroachment Permit Agreement for resolution of East Mission Gorge (EMG) Pump Station transfer
17 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
3.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The District has defined the column headings in the environmental checklist as follows:
A) “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that the project’s effect may be significant. If one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries are checked, an EIR will be prepared.
B) “Less Than Significant with Project-level Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of project specific mitigation measures will reduce an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” All project-level mitigation measures are described, including a brief explanation of how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
C) “Less Than Significant with CFMP PEIR Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the potential impacts of the proposed project were adequately addressed in the 2017 CFMP PEIR. As specified in the following analysis, the CFMP PEIR mitigation measures will mitigate any impacts of the proposed project to the extent feasible. CFMP PEIR mitigation measures may be incorporated into the project. The impact analysis in this document summarizes and cross references the relevant analysis in the 2017 CFMP PEIR.
D) “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project will not result in any significant effects. The effects may or may not have been discussed in the 2017 CFMP PEIR. The project impact is less than significant without the incorporation of CFMP or Project-level mitigation.
E) “No Impact” applies where a project would not result in any impact in the category in question or the category simply does not apply. “No Impact” answers do not require an explanation if they are adequately supported by the information sources cited by the lead agency which show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).
18 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
ISSUES:
I. AESTHETICS
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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?
Discussion a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than significant impact. During construction of the proposed project, construction activities and staging of equipment and materials would temporarily alter the visual environment at locations along the entire project alignment; however, this impact would be temporary and construction activities would not result in a significant impact on a scenic vista.
The Ray Stoyer WRF is located adjacent to the western portion of the Fanita Ranch property, which is specified in the Santee General Plan (2003), as containing visual resources associated with the major ridgeline and hillside systems. However, the Ray Stoyer WRF site itself is not within an area designated as a scenic vista designated by the City of Santee or the County of San Diego. The components of the project located within the Ray Stoyer WRF site would consist of new facilities and modifications to existing facilities that would fit the visual environment of the existing development. The components of the project that would be constructed at the IPS site and EMG Pump Station, including the Residuals Bypass System, would be consistent with and similar to previous development already occurring on the properties. These components of the project would not interfere with hillside vistas or with the major ridgeline and hillside systems.
The proposed force main from the EMG Pump Station, EMG Pump Station improvements, and the majority of the AWP Pipeline would primarily be installed in developed areas, and no impacts to scenic vistas would occur. While a portion of the EMG Force Main and Residuals Bypass System pipeline would be installed beneath the Carlton Oaks Golf Course, trenchless methods be used and would minimize visual impacts during construction. The EMG Force Main and the portion of the AWP Pipeline from the AWTP Facility to the dechlorination station would be underground pipelines, and no long-term impacts
19 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 to visual resources would occur. The proposed dechlorination station would be constructed in developed areas, and no impact to scenic vistas would occur.
The components of the proposed project associated with the SWA at Lake Jennings would be located near areas containing visual resources and could have a substantial effect on scenic vistas. In the CFMP PEIR, impacts were determined to be potentially significant for these components, and mitigation measure CFMP Aes-3 was identified, which requires a project-specific visual resource analysis for the SWA component of the project. To satisfy the requirements of mitigation measure CFMP Aes-3, the discussion in this section includes a project-specific visual analysis of the SWA component of the ECAWP Project, which includes the following: (1) an analysis of the compatibility of the proposed structures with the existing aesthetic character of the surrounding area; (2) an assessment of the potential effect to the visual resources within Lake Jennings; and (3) incorporate project design features (as applicable) to ensure that proposed structures are visually compatible with the surrounding environment and do not impede public views of a local scenic resource.
The proposed dechlorination station would replace the existing pumphouse at the El Monte Pump Station, which is gated and surrounded by privacy fencing. The County of San Diego Historic Flume Trail trailhead is located northeast of the El Monte Pump Station and switchbacks up the adjacent hill to the southeast towards Lake Jennings. The proposed dechlorination station would not block views to the El Monte Valley, El Cajon Mountain, Hanson Pond, or surrounding hillsides for motorists on El Monte Road nor for hikers on the Historic Flume Trail, and no impacts to scenic vistas would occur.
The segment of the AWP Pipeline from the dechlorination station to the proposed inlet at Lake Jennings would replace an old above-ground and below-ground pipeline. The AWP Pipeline would follow the existing above-ground pipeline alignment that runs just north of the Historic Flume Trail and is currently blocked off with covered chain link fencing which is visible from portions of the trail. This portion of the AWP Pipeline would be approximately 900 feet and would replace the existing above-ground water facilities (pipeline and saddle supports). Approximately 1,100 feet of new above-ground pipeline would be installed along the Historic Flume Trail alignment near the top of the hill southeast of the proposed dechlorination facility to the existing El Monte Tunnel. The portion of the pipeline that would replace the existing above-ground pipeline would not result in a visual impact, as it would be a similar appearance to existing conditions. The portion of the pipeline that would be constructed along the Flume Trail would be a visible change from existing conditions. However, the pipeline would have a low profile relative to the surrounding hillsides ( the height above ground of the top of the 24-inch diameter pipeline, including the saddle structures, would be approximately three feet) and would not impede views to the surrounding hillsides for motorists on El Monte Road or to El Monte Valley, Hanson Pond, or El Cajon Mountain for hikers on the Historic Flume Trail, and no impacts to scenic vistas would occur.
The AWP Pipeline will be routed through the El Monte Tunnel to the proposed Lake Jennings inlet at Half Moon Cove. The proposed inlet at Lake Jennings would be a cascading water feature that would reach the lakebed in an area that currently contains natural vegetation. The inlet would be visible from the Lake Loop Trail that circles Lake Jennings, as well as from some areas of the lake. The inlet would be located in an area that currently contains natural vegetation with views towards distant hillsides to the north. The inlet would be designed to emulate a natural stream to blend with the natural surroundings and the cascading waterfall would be constructed using boulders or rip rap with a concrete base, as shown in Figure 7a and Figure 7b. Views from the lake towards the hillsides beyond the shoreline or from the surrounding public trails towards the lake would not be impeded by the proposed water feature at the inlet and impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.
20 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No impact. The CFMP PEIR determined that permanent visual impacts related to proposed CFMP projects would only occur from above-ground reservoirs or from temporary construction activities visible from a state scenic highway. The proposed project does not propose an above-ground reservoir, nor would temporary construction activities be visible from a state scenic highway. The nearest designated state scenic highway is the segment of SR 52 from post mile 9.5 near Santo Road to post mile 13.0 near Mast Boulevard. No project components would be visible from this segment of SR 52, and no other designated or eligible state scenic highways are located in the vicinity of the project; therefore, no related impact would occur. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The CFMP PEIR determined that temporary visual impacts would occur from construction of all types of CFMP projects. Construction of the proposed project would involve the disturbance of ground cover, grading, excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction equipment, all of which would temporarily degrade the existing visual character at the construction site and its surroundings. For example, construction equipment near Half Moon Cove for the inlet to Lake Jennings or near the Historic Flume Trail for the above-ground pipeline may be visible from hiking trails surrounding the lake or from surrounding trails during the construction period in that area. Therefore, short-term impacts associated with construction would include potentially significant substantial adverse changes in existing visual character. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Aes-1 would reduce potential significant impacts related to construction of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level.
Below-ground features of the project (i.e. pipelines) would not be visible and would therefore not degrade the visual character of the surroundings. The majority of the above-ground components of the project would consist of construction of new facilities and modifications to existing facilities that would be similar to the existing visual character and quality of the Ray Stoyer WRF site. New facilities (headworks, odor control, and generator buildings; bioreactors; the AWTP facility; primary and secondary clarifiers; filters; and equalization basin) would be constructed on the Ray Stoyer WRF property. The IPS upgrade would occur on property containing the existing IPS and other District infrastructure. The EMG Pump Station improvements would be constructed within the existing facility. These modifications and new facilities would be similar to the bulk, scale, and industrial design of the existing facilities; therefore, the project would be similar to the existing visual character and quality of the area. The El Monte Pumphouse is surrounded by privacy fencing, and demolition of the existing structure would not substantially change the visual character of the area. In addition, public views of the Ray Stoyer WRF site and the proposed AWTP Facility location are limited by existing development, the setback distance into the canyon of the facilities from public roads, and surrounding topography. For these reasons, visual impacts from the project facilities occurring within the Ray Stoyer WRF site, the EMG Pump Station, the IPS, and the dechlorination facility would be less than significant.
Once constructed, most pipelines as part of the project would be below ground and would not be visible. For example, the AWP Pipeline would be installed using trenchless methods, such as horizontal directional drilling, where it would cross the San Diego River east of Lakeside Avenue. While temporary construction-related visual impacts would occur, no long-term effects to the visual character and quality
21 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 of the river would occur. Between the proposed dechlorination station and the inlet to Lake Jennings, segments of the AWP Pipeline would be above ground. One segment of the pipeline carrying purified water up the hillside to Lake Jennings would be along a historical alignment previously used for a now- decommissioned above-ground water line. Visual impacts of the proposed AWP Pipeline would be similar to existing conditions in this area. An additional segment along the Flume Trail alignment would also be above ground. While portions of the above-ground pipeline may be visible to hikers on the trail, the pipeline would have a low profile and would not interrupt views to the surrounding natural vegetation or hillsides. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section I.a, the proposed cascading water feature at the inlet to Lake Jennings would be designed to emulate a natural stream and waterfall (refer to Figure 7a and Figure 7b). While the addition of the water feature would change the visual character of the site from a vegetated slope to a manmade waterfall, the visible components of the inlet would be constructed using primarily natural materials (i.e., riprap) that would be selected to blend with the existing natural rock features in the project area. Since the inlet would be designed to look like a natural water feature and would blend with the natural surroundings, impacts related to the visual character and quality of the area at the inlet site would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Project construction would primarily occur during daylight hours, during which time no lighting would be required. Nighttime lighting would be directed to the work site to avoid unnecessary spill and would provide a level of lighting that is appropriate for work and safety for workers. The potential use of nighttime lighting for construction at the Ray Stoyer WRF site would not result in a substantial impact to nighttime views in the area, as the existing facility operates for 24 hours a day. Outside of the Ray Stoyer WRF site, temporary lighting from construction of project components could have potentially significant impacts if construction were to occur at night. The PEIR requires implementation of CFMP Aes-1, which specifies that construction lighting be shielded or directed away from adjacent residences to minimize lighting impacts during construction. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Aes-1 would reduce impacts related to nighttime construction lighting to a less-than-significant level.
Following completion of construction activities, the modifications at the Ray Stoyer WRF would include standard safety lighting with low illumination. In addition, nighttime lighting would be consistent with City of Santee Municipal Code Section 17.30.030 (the City of Santee Zoning Ordinance Development Standards), which requires that all lighting be designed and adjusted to reflect light away from adjacent properties and be shielded or directed to not cause glare on adjacent properties. The biogas flare at the SHERF would potentially be visible from higher elevations in the vicinity of the project site; however, the flare would be completely enclosed in a metal shroud. While the shroud could give off a glow during nighttime flaring, the biogas flare would not create a substantial new source of light. Other permanent nighttime lighting associated the proposed project would be limited to emergency and security lighting. Emergency lighting would be activated as necessary, such as in the event of an emergency nighttime repair. Security lighting could result in potentially significant impacts to the immediate vicinity if security lighting were to be placed in areas that have minimal to no existing nighttime lighting. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Aes-4 would require security lighting to be low illumination, shielded, and directed downward to prevent light and glare from affecting neighboring properties, thus reducing potential significant impacts from security lighting to a less-than-significant level.
22 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Mitigation
The following mitigation measures identified in the CFMP PEIR would mitigate potentially significant impacts identified in this section to less than significant levels.
CFMP Aes-1 Construction Visual Disturbance Minimization Measures. The following measures would be incorporated into the design and construction of project components that involve ground disturbance or construction within trails to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the projects:
• Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal.
• Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to the extent needed to facilitate project construction and access to the site.
• Construction lighting will be shielded or directed away from adjacent residences.
• All roadway and trail features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, etc.) and structures 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 removed vegetation included invasive plant species, the restored area shall be revegetated with a mix of native, non- invasive plants that are compatible with the surrounding setting. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by the District, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by the District to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CFMP 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.
CFMP Aes-4 Shielding for Security Lighting. To reduce impacts related to creating a new source of lighting, new security lighting for the proposed project will be low illumination, shielded, and directed downward to prevent light and glare from affecting neighboring properties.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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?
23 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 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?
Discussion
The following discussion addresses questions II(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
No impact. The CFMP PEIR concluded that impacts to agricultural resources as a result of implementation of the CFMP, including the proposed project, would be less than significant because the overall development footprints of the CFMP projects, in relation to the total District service area and the amount of farmland present within the service area, would not result in a significant direct or indirect conversion of agricultural or forest resources, or conflict with any Williamson Act contracts. Specifically, no forestry resources were identified in the project area and the operation and maintenance of the project would not conflict with or otherwise affect the operation of surrounding agricultural uses or preclude their use for agricultural purposes. No site-specific aspects of the proposed project alter this analysis. Therefore, no impact would occur.
III. AIR QUALITY
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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?
24 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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?
Discussion
An Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (HELIX 2018b) was prepared for the project and is attached to this IS/MND as Appendix B; analysis and conclusions from the report are provided in the discussion below. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than significant impact. The applicable air quality plan for the proposed project is the 2016 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) (SDAPCD 2016). This plan was prepared by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) for the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), to demonstrate how the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) would either maintain or strive to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The CFMP PEIR determined that the CFMP projects, including the proposed project, are based on the projected growth that would occur in the District service area and would not generate any additional population or serve unplanned growth. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in population growth that would exceed the population projections accounted for in the RAQS and SIP. Consistent with the findings of the PEIR, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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 (AQIA) screening level thresholds for new or modified stationary sources (SDAPCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3). These screening level thresholds can be used to demonstrate whether a project’s total emissions would result in a significant impact to regional air quality and are used in the analysis below.
Criteria pollutant emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod is a computer model used to estimate criteria air pollutant resulting from
25 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 construction and operation of land development projects throughout the state of California. The model calculates emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10), particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and the ozone precursors volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). The input data and subsequent construction and operation emission estimates for the proposed project are discussed below. CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix B to this IS/MND.
Construction
Construction of the proposed 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. Modeling for the construction emissions assumed that disturbed areas would be watered twice daily during grading activities to ensure that dust does not exceed the standards listed in SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control (i.e., visible dust emissions into the atmosphere shall not be emitted by the project beyond the property line for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period). Other construction assumptions used in modeling, including for earthwork, haul trip lengths, excavation, worker commute lengths, and building square footage to be demolished or constructed are included in Appendix B to this IS/MND.
The results of the CalEEMod calculations for project construction are shown in Table 4, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with SDAPCD thresholds. The tables do not present emissions from blasting, as the specifics of blasting are unknown at the current level of project design.
Table 4 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Year VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 2021 8 86 86 <0.5 6 4 2022 21 222 206 <0.5 14 10 2023 19 191 193 <0.5 12 9 2024 15 150 164 <0.5 9 7 2025 2 20 24 <0.5 1 1 Maximum Daily Emissions 21 222 206 <0.5 14 10 Significance Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix B) VOC = volatile organic compounds, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter
As shown in Table 4, emissions from regular construction activities would not exceed the SDAPCD daily thresholds.
Blasting may occur along the AWP Pipeline alignment. Blasting involves drilling small holes into the rock and placing explosives. Flyrock protection is installed prior to blasting, and seismographs are placed to measure and record peak particle velocity and air blast levels at various distances from the blast site. However, the type and quantity of explosive material used, and the potential timing and need for blasts, cannot be determined at this time because this information depends on the site-specific conditions and
26 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 requirements of each location. As such, details regarding blasting for project components are unavailable at the current level of project design, and analysis of impacts associated with blasting would be speculative and likely inaccurate. Where blasting may be used, dust control measures would also be implemented and include a combination of steel plate covers, geo-textile fabric with chain link fence covering, and wetting of the blasting surface. In the event that blasting is utilized, the District or the blasting contractor would be required to obtain a blasting permit and explosive permit per the San Diego County Regulatory Ordinances. However, a site-specific analysis would be necessary to ensure that emissions from blasting activities would be within the daily SDAPCD emission limits. Therefore, impacts associated with blasting for the project are assessed as potentially significant. As part of mitigation measure CFMP Air-1 described below, a project-specific analysis will be implemented. This analysis will identify blasting emissions compared to daily SDAPCD significance thresholds, and if blasting results are estimated to exceed thresholds, the analysis would identify additional measures to ensure that emissions from blasting activities would be within the daily SDAPCD emission limits.
Operation
Operational emissions include mobile sources (vehicle trips), energy sources, and biogas emissions. Based on the staffing needs of the new facilities, it was assumed buildout of the project would require 80 additional worker trips, 85 additional truck trips, and 10 visitor trips per week (the following trips per week would occur per project component: 9 trips for the influent pump station; 1 trip for the AWP pipeline/Lake Jennings inlet; 1 trip for the dechlorination station; 23 trips for the Ray Stoyer WRF; 91 trips for the SHERF; 33 trips for the AWTP facility; and 17 trips for the EMG components and residuals bypass system). The emissions from mobile sources were calculated assuming CalEEMod default trip lengths. Nine diesel-powered emergency generators, including four generators at the Ray Stoyer WRF (two 750-kW generators and two 1,000-kW generators); two 1,500-kW generators at the EMG pump station; one 1,000-kW generator at the SHERF; one 500-kW generator at the IPS; and one 250-kW generator for the Lake Jennings blower would be used for backup power during electric power failures. Generator emissions were estimated using CalEEMod based on the monthly testing frequency and duration and the power output of the engines. Using emission factors for flaring and boilers from the USEPA, biogas at the boilers would result in emissions of 5.56 CO pounds per day, 4.72 NOx pounds per day, and 1.81 PM10 and PM2.5 pounds per day, and biogas that is flared would result in emissions of 6.49 CO pounds per day, 5.5 NOX pounds per day, and 2.11 for PM10 and PM2.5 pounds per day. These values were input as user defined emissions under stationary sources in CalEEMod for modeling project operational emissions. Table 5, Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, presents the summary of operational emissions for the project.
27 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Table 5 MAXIMUM DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Category VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Energy <0.5 3 2 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Mobile <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Stationary 25 124 78 <0.5 8 8 Maximum Daily Emissions 26 127 81 <0.5 8 8 Significance Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix B) VOC = volatile organic compounds, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SOX = sulfur oxides, PM10 = particulate matter of 10 micrometers or less in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter
As shown in Table 5, project emissions of all criteria pollutants during operation would be below the daily thresholds. Operational emissions of the project would therefore result in a less than significant impact. c) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. 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 has not met the federal and/or state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5; therefore, significant cumulative impacts to air quality for VOCs (ozone precursor), NOX (ozone precursor), PM10, and PM2.5 currently exist. Consistent with the CFMP PEIR, 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 AQIA screening level thresholds.
As described in Section III.b, blasting may result in potentially significant criteria pollutant emissions and a site-specific analysis would be necessary to ensure that emissions from blasting activities would be within the daily SDAPCD emission limits. With implementation of CFMP Air-1, construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Long-term operational emissions, as shown above in Table 5, would be well below regional thresholds, and, therefore, not cumulatively considerable. The long-term cumulative impact would be less than significant. d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than significant impact. Impacts to sensitive receptors are typically analyzed for CO hotspots and exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). An analysis of the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to these pollutants is provided below.
28 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
A CO hotspot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. A quantitative screening is required in two instances: (1) if a project increases the average delay at signalized intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F; or (2) if a project causes an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project to operate at LOS E or F with the project. SANDAG’s Transportation Forecast Information Center website includes estimates of traffic volumes along Mast Boulevard and Fanita Parkway for the year 2020 (SANDAG 2013). For the segment of Fanita Parkway from the Ray Stoyer WRF to Mast Boulevard, the forecast traffic volume is 5,900 average daily trips (ADT). For the segment of Mast Boulevard from Fanita Parkway to West Hills Parkway the forecast volumes range from 18,500 ADT to 20,400 ADT. The peak increase in daily trips associated with daily operation of all project components would be nominal compared to these traffic volumes (approximately 110 additional trips per day, with most trips on Fanita Parkway). Therefore, the project would neither cause new severe congestion nor significantly worsen existing congestion. There would be no potential for a CO hotspot or exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial, project-generated, local CO emissions.
Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction
Construction activities would result in short-term, project-generated emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment. CARB identified diesel PM as a TAC in 1998. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Health Risk Assessments (HRAs), which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. The construction period would be relatively short when compared to a 30-year exposure period. In addition, construction would occur at various locations over a large area, and a large amount of equipment would not occur near a single sensitive receptor for an extended period of time. Combined with the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM and additional reductions in exhaust emissions from improved equipment, construction-related emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of diesel PM.
Operation
With regard to long-term operations, new sources of TACs include boiling and flaring of biogas and backup emergency diesel generators. The backup generators would only be used for testing or emergency situations. They are anticipated to be tested for 2 hours per month, equating to 24 hours of operation per year. At this length of operation, the generators would emit negligible TACs. Proposed pumps and blower equipment would be electrically powered and would not generate on-site emissions of TACs.
Boiling and flaring of biogas would emit a variety of organic compounds, generally in very small quantities. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was performed to model the potential health effects from the biogas. Cancer and non-cancer (acute and chronic) risks due to exposure to TAC emissions were evaluated following the latest guidance outlined in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA] 2015).
29 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
The first step of the HRA is to characterize the project-related emissions. Emissions were estimated based on estimates of biogas to be burned in each device and emission factors for biogas boilers and flares obtained from source testing at the PLWWTP (SDAPCD 2005). See Appendix C of Appendix B for the details of the emission estimates.
Emissions were then modeled using the USEPA-developed AERMOD air dispersion model. Receptors were placed on a grid with 328-foot (100-meter) spacing to characterize the regional risk levels. Five years of meteorological data for the Gillespie Field Airport were used to represent the atmospheric conditions at the project site. These emissions sources, parameters, and receptor data were modeled using the AERMOD air dispersion model to produce concentrations at receptors of interest. These concentrations were then incorporated into the Hotspots Analysis Reporting Program (HARP) model to determine individual health risk levels.
The HARP Risk Module predicts health impacts in terms of cancer risk and non-cancer risk (hazard index acute [HIA] and hazard index chronic [HIC]) by factoring AERMOD-predicted pollutant concentrations by pollutant-specific cancer potency values and chronic/acute reference exposure levels (REL) obtained from OEHHA. For residential exposure, it is assumed that the person is exposed continuously to the maximum concentration for 30 years. The SDAPCD significance threshold for cancer risk is 10 in 1 million and the threshold for non-cancer risk (HIA and HIC) is 1.0 (a unitless index).
AERMOD and HARP modeling was conducted for sensitive receptors near the project area, including residents and representative locations of living communities. Nearby residents included in the HRA include the future residents of the proposed Fanita Ranch development project. The detailed HRA modeling results are provided in Appendix C of Appendix B.
With the conservative modeling technique used (i.e., assuming that an individual stays outdoors at his or her residence 24 hours per day for 30 years, which is the State-required period of time that HRAs must use for analysis), the nearest proposed sensitive receptor to be included as part of the proposed Fanita Ranch development project would be exposed to an incremental cancer risk of no more than 0.73 in 1 million, which is lower than the SDAPCD significance threshold for cancer risk of 10 in 1 million. The HIA would be 0.0043 and the HIC 0.0012, which are both lower than the SDAPCD significance threshold for non-cancer hazard of 1.0. Therefore, no significant health risk would occur from project-related TAC emissions. e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. The following discussion describes potential odor impacts associated with construction and operation of the project.
Construction
The PEIR determined that odor impacts from construction of the CFMP projects would be less than significant because construction of the CFMP projects would not result in significant emissions of odorous sulfur oxides. Additionally, construction equipment associated with the CFMP projects would be operating at various locations throughout the service area and would not take place all at once. Odorous hydrocarbons emissions would dissipate beyond the emissions sources and would only 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 construction. The proposed project does not include any construction activities that would result in odors not accounted for in the PEIR.
30 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Therefore, consistent with the findings of the PEIR, impacts related to odor impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
Operation
No odor contributing compounds are anticipated as part of AWP Pipeline, Lake Jennings Inlet, and associated Dechlorination Station.
The existing EMG Pump Station currently implements the following measures for odor control: ferric chloride for chemical treatment and activated carbon scrubbing. Odor control measures would continue to be implemented at the EMG Pump Station. It is anticipated ferric chloride would continue to be used for odor control. In addition, activated carbon (dry scrubbing) utilizing the existing odor control components or wet scrubbing utilizing existing blowers and tanks may be implemented, pending further evaluation. There is a potential that trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide may be released; however, methods of odor control described above would be utilized to reduce hydrogen sulfide to a negligible quantity of 0.5 ppm.
Odor control measures for the EMG Force Main would be implemented to remove odors that may be discharged from air valves installed along the force main. Air valve odor control treatment would consist of activated carbon canisters installed at the location of each combination air release and air-vacuum valve. The carbon canisters would be placed on the discharge side of the air release or air-vacuum valve. Replacement of the spent carbon canisters would depend on the extent of air leaving the pipeline, with anticipated replacement of the spent carbon canisters every 6 to 12 months.
The existing IPS currently implements a bio scrubber tower with second stage activated carbon canister for odor control. This odor control measure would continue to be implemented at the upgraded pump station. It is anticipated that the existing bio scrubber and the carbon canister would be refurbished as needed. In addition, a chemical storage and metering facility would be constructed for ferric chloride injection to provide added odor control measure. There is a potential that trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide may be released; however, methods of odor control described above would be utilized to reduce hydrogen sulfide to a negligible quantity of 0.5 ppm.
There are currently no existing sensitive receptors within a half-mile of the Ray Stoyer WRF and no existing odor complaints. The vacant land to the north and east of the project site is currently zoned for residential uses and proposed for Fanita Ranch residential development. Potential odor impacts from the expansion of the Ray Stoyer WRF would be associated with trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide emissions. The overall Ray Stoyer WRF expansion would implement odorous air management via containment and extraction of odor causing compounds (liberated from the liquid stream) through a two-stage system that includes biofiltration and activated carbon. This would result in point sources of odorous compounds at exhaust points below detection limits.
Air containing hydrogen sulfide may originate from the SHERF’s thickening/dewatering building and high-strength waste (HSW) receiving station. The air would be withdrawn directly from the housings of the solids thickening and solids dewatering units and conveyed to a packaged carbon scrubber located outdoors. Foul air would also be withdrawn directly from the HSW storage tanks located in the HSW Receiving Station and conveyed to a separate packaged carbon scrubber. The carbon scrubbers would be designed to handle the foul air flowrate from these areas with a 25 percent factor of safety.
31 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Additionally, SDAPCD Rule 51 prohibits nuisances, including objectionable odors. The SDAPCD responds to odor complaints by investigating the complaint and determining whether the odor violates SDAPCD Rule 51. The inspector takes enforcement action if the source is not in compliance with the SDAPCD rules and regulations. In the event of enforcement action, odor-causing impacts must be reduced by appropriate means to minimize or avoid the impacts to sensitive. Such means may include shutdown of odor sources or requirements to control odors using add-on equipment.
Given the aforementioned project design features and conformance with SDAPCD Rule 51, the proposed project would not result in significant objectionable odors and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation
The project shall implement the following measure adapted from the CFMP PEIR to mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with blasting to less than significant levels.
CFMP Air-1 Site-Specific Air Quality Analysis Related to Blasting. Prior to the commencement of blasting activities, the District shall require the preparation of a project-specific air quality impact analysis by a qualified air quality consultant if project construction involves blasting to verify that blasting emissions are less than the daily SDAPCD significance thresholds listed in Table 4.2-4 of the PEIR. If blasting results in exceedances of emissions thresholds, the District shall implement additional measures to reduce emissions to within SDAPCD daily screening level thresholds. These measures may include reducing the size, extent, or number of blasting events on a given day. The specific additional measures, if required, shall be determined by the qualified air quality consultant based on the results of the final air quality analysis. If the measures are unable to reduce emissions to within SDAPCD daily screening level thresholds, no blasting shall occur. In this scenario, any substitute method for blasting shall also have an air quality analysis performed as described above that demonstrates the emissions would be within SDAPCD screening level thresholds.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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?
32 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, 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 native 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?
Discussion
The PEIR determined that the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact to biological resources. Pursuant to PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1A, a project-level biological resources study was performed. The Biological Resources Technical Letter that was prepared for the project and is attached to this IS/MND as Appendix C; analysis and conclusions from the project-level study are summarized in the discussion below. The project-level study reflected in this section represents the implementation of additional CFMP mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1B, CFMP Bio-1C, and CFMP Bio-3A.
Prior to conducting the biological survey for the project, HELIX performed an updated search of the PEIR literature review of the following biological resource databases: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Offices Species Status Lists, USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC), and SanBIOS. In addition, two project-specific general biological surveys were conducted on March 19, 2018, and March 26, 2018, to inventory vegetation, sensitive species, and jurisdictional waters at the project locations. In addition to the general biological survey, HELIX conducted special status rare plant surveys and year 2018 protocol-level surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha
33 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 quino). Refer to Attachments D through G of the project Biological Resources Technical Letter (Attachment C of this IS/MND) for specific survey routes. Existing data on other special status species known to the local area, such as the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), was also referenced during HELIX’s surveys and coupled with incidental observations of the species during other surveys. For further details on the methods and surveys conducted for the proposed project, please refer to Appendix C. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Information regarding biological resources that occur or have the potential to occur within the project site 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 conducted as part of preparations of the PEIR, as described in Section 4.3 of the PEIR. Additionally, project-specific general biological surveys were conducted to verify the presence or absence of special status plant and animal species, as described below.
Direct impacts include the direct take, removal, or displacement of special-status species and their habitat through activities such as clearing, grubbing, grading, and other land disturbance activities. Removal of habitat could result in displacement of special-status wildlife and less habitat available within a species’ range to carry out vital life history requirements such as breeding, foraging, dispersal, migration, aestivation (i.e., underground dormancy or torpor during the summer) and predator evasion. Indirect impacts could occur in cases where activities would not directly impact sensitive species or their habitat but could indirectly affect life history requirements (i.e., the growth, reproduction, and survivorship success of a species) through activities adjacent to occupied habitat, resulting in impacts such as additional noise, lighting, erosion/sedimentation, and fugitive dust.
Construction activities for CFMP projects, including the proposed project, would comply with the federal CWA, California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the implementing regulations of the SWRCB and RWQCB, and the NPDES Program, which would include the preparation of Erosion Control Plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), and the implementation of prescribed Best Management Practices (BMPs), thereby avoiding and minimizing potential indirect impacts to special- status species and their habitat from water pollution during project construction. In addition, and as described in Section 4.2 of the PEIR, BMPs would be implemented to minimize fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during construction of CFMP projects, including the proposed project, thereby reducing potential indirect impacts associated with fugitive dust to less than significant levels.
Special Status Plants
In accordance with PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1B, rare plant surveys were performed by HELIX in April and June 2018. Four special-status plant species were identified within the potential disturbance area of the proposed project: ashy spike moss, San Diego County viguiera, delicate clarkia, and San Diego goldenstar. Ashy spike-moss, San Diego County viguiera, delicate clarkia, and San Diego goldenstar occur as natural populations in the habitat around Lake Jennings. Five San Diego sagewort and three San Diego marsh-elder individuals occur as landscape cultivars within the parking lot at Santee Lakes and on
34 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 the edge of the potential disturbance limits for the project. However, construction activities and disturbances would not occur within the path of these species and therefore no impacts would occur.
Potential impacts on ashy spike-moss and San Diego County viguiera would be less than significant. These species are designated by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 4, which means they are relatively widespread in the local and regional area. The majority of the individuals observed in the study area and immediate vicinity (i.e., local populations) would be avoided by the project. Project impacts would not jeopardize the long-term survival of either species and impacts would be less than significant.
As currently planned, 17 delicate clarkia individuals and less than 10 San Diego goldenstar individuals occur along the potential above-grade pipeline alignment to Lake Jennings and within the potential disturbance limits for the project. These plants are CRPR 1B plants, which is a relatively higher rank of sensitivity to other CRPR plants. In addition, these species are not placed near known populations of the same species, and isolated strands of sensitive species represent genetic gene pool diversity that is valued. Therefore, impacts to these CRPR 1B plants would be considered significant. Implementation of project-level mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-1 will ensure that the areas supporting delicate clarkia and San Diego goldenstar along the flume trail are shown on project plans, delineated prior to construction, and avoided during project construction to the extent feasible. Any inadvertent and unavoidable impacts would be mitigated in accordance with mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1B from the CFMP PEIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Special Status Animals
Several special-status animal species have the potential to occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Project construction could result in potential significant direct and indirect impacts on special-status animal species, including nesting birds, as described in further detail below.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
The presence of a Coastal California gnatcatcher breeding pair and nest within the study area, immediately adjacent to the potential direct disturbance limits for the AWP Pipeline, was confirmed during 2018 protocol surveys. Open cut trenching for pipeline installation is proposed within an existing developed access road at this location, immediately south of coastal sage scrub habitat where the gnatcatcher pair was confirmed. If construction activities at this location occur during the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 to August 31) and they are not restricted to the existing developed access road, direct impacts to the species could occur. These potential direct impacts would be considered significant. Implementation of project-level mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-2 would ensure that pre-construction surveys for gnatcatcher are conducted by a USFWS-permitted biologist prior to initiating construction activities at this location during the breeding season to confirm presence or absence of the species. If the species is confirmed to be present within the habitat immediately adjacent to the construction activities location during the breeding season, then implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-3 and CFMP Bio-1H shall be required, which include measures for restricting activities to periods outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season, installation of temporary construction fencing, and biological monitoring. If activities at this location cannot be restricted to periods outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season, then as required pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, the District shall consult with the USFWS and implement additional avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures in accordance with mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-4.
35 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
In addition, gnatcatcher was confirmed at five locations outside of the study area, but within 500 feet of the project disturbance limits. None of these locations occur on or immediately adjacent to the potential direct disturbance limits for the project. Construction activities within 500 feet of these gnatcatcher locations include open cut trenching and trenchless construction for pipeline installation, in addition to various improvements at the Ray Stoyer WRF, including filling in of Ponds A and B (described further below under “Filling of Artificial Ponds”). If construction activities at these locations occur during the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 to August 31), noise in excess of 60 dBA generated from construction work areas could adversely affect breeding gnatcatchers where existing ambient noise levels are not already in exceedance of 60 dBA. As discussed under Section XII(a), construction noise is anticipated to exceed 60 dBA at coastal California gnatcatcher habitat. These potential indirect impacts would be considered significant. Implementation of project-level mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-2 would ensure that pre-construction surveys for gnatcatcher are conducted by a USFWS-permitted biologist prior to initiating activities at the five locations to confirm presence or absence of the species. If the species is confirmed to be present within the habitat immediately adjacent to the trenching activities location, then implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-3, CFMP Bio-1H, and CFMP Bio-1I shall be required, which include measures for restricting activities to periods outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season, installation of temporary construction fencing, biological monitoring, and noise monitoring. If activities at this location cannot be restricted to periods outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season and construction-generated noise is confirmed to be in excess of 60 dBA at the edge of occupied habitat, then the District shall consult with the USFWS and implement additional avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures in accordance with mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-4.
In addition, portions of the disturbance footprint for pipeline installation and construction activities near Lake Jennings will occur within the designated critical habitat overlay for gnatcatcher. The impacts associated with these activities will be temporary and no new above-ground structures are proposed. The activities would not result in adverse modification of critical habitat and impacts to sensitive habitat types will be mitigated in accordance with CFMP Bio-2A and ECAWP Bio-7.
Least Bell’s Vireo
The least Bell’s vireo was detected at three locations outside of the study area, but within 500 feet of the project disturbance limits. None of these locations occur on or immediately adjacent to the potential direct disturbance limits for the project. Construction activities within 500 feet of these vireo locations include open cut trenching and trenchless construction for pipeline installation, in addition to various improvements at the Ray Stoyer WRF, including filling in of Ponds A and B (described further below under the Filling of Artificial Ponds section). Additional habitat suitable for vireo supporting historical records for the species occurs within the San Diego River and within 500 feet of trenchless construction activities proposed nearby. Impacts to designated vireo critical habitat would be temporary as a result of construction staging during trenchless pipeline installation beneath the San Diego River; the activities would not result in adverse modification of critical habitat. If construction activities at these locations begin during the vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15), noise in excess of 60 dBA generated from construction work areas could adversely affect breeding vireos where existing ambient noise levels are not already in exceedance of 60 dBA. As discussed under Section XII(a), construction noise is anticipated to exceed 60 dBA at least Bell’s vireo habitat. These potential indirect impacts would be considered significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H, CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Bio-1J, ECAWP Bio-4, ECAWP Bio-5, and ECAWP Bio-6 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
36 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Nesting Birds
Trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds, including raptors, protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game (CFG) Code are present within and in the immediate vicinity of the potential direct disturbance area for the project, including staging areas. Construction of the proposed project could result in the removal or trimming of trees and other vegetation during the general bird nesting season (January 15 to September 15) and, therefore, could result in impacts to nesting birds in violation of the MBTA and CFG Code. Direct impacts could occur as a result of removal of vegetation supporting an active nest. Indirect effects could occur as a result of construction noise in the immediate vicinity of undeveloped areas supporting an active bird nest, such that the disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. Impacts would be considered significant. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1F would reduce potentially significant impacts on nesting birds and raptors to less than significant levels.
Other Special-Status Animals
Several other non-listed, special-status animal species have the potential to occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Some of these were observed within the study area or flying over during project surveys. The species include: California glossy snake, coast horned lizard, coastal whiptail, Coronado skink, orange-throated whiptail, red diamond rattlesnake, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, San Diego cactus wren, yellow warbler, osprey, double-crested cormorant, Costa’s hummingbird, Cooper’s hawk, Caspian tern, American white pelican, Dulzura California pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, pocketed free-tailed bat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and San Diego desert woodrat. Potential impacts on these species would be limited to temporary displacement of individuals during project construction; in addition, based on the quality and size of the habitat that could be impacted, the areas are not expected to support locally or regionally significant populations of these non-listed sensitive species. Therefore, impacts to the species would be considered less than significant. Loss of habitat would be mitigated in accordance with PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Bio-2A, as described further below under Section IV(b).
The project would conduct trenchless construction activities. During these activities, use of a clay lubricant, specifically bentonite slurry, can potentially impact amphibians, aquatic reptiles, fish, and other aquatic species and their habitats when hydrofractures (commonly referred to as “frac-outs”) occur. Bentonite is often considered non-toxic; however, benthic invertebrates, aquatic plants, fish, and their eggs could potentially be smothered by fine particles of bentonite if it is discharged into waterways. Through the implementation of the Frac-Out Contingency Plan, described under Section 2.0, Project Description, the potential for hydrofractures and adverse effects from the hydrofractures would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, portions of the study area overlap with the designated critical habitat overlay for the federally listed, arroyo toad. These areas are proposed for pipeline installation, pump station, and construction activities within existing disturbed and developed uplands that lack the primary constituent elements (PCEs) associated with the species. The areas are isolated from potential breeding habitat within the San Diego River and would not be expected to be used by the species for overland dispersal or estivation. Therefore, the proposed project will result in no adverse modification to arroyo toad critical habitat.
37 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Filling of Artificial Ponds
The expansion and creation of the Ray Stoyer WRF facilities would fill in artificial Ponds A and B, which would be drained and then filled with soil. These man-made, seasonal ponds were artificially created when the Ray Stoyer WRF was constructed. They were constructed to be part of the Ray Stoyer WRF treatment system and are connected by a network of pipes and valves that control flows as part of the Ray Stoyer WRF operations. Recycled water produced by the Ray Stoyer WRF is the primary hydrology source for the features, which can be controlled and turned off by the District at any time. The ponds are further subject to regular maintenance activities that are fundamentally part of the Ray Stoyer WRF operations and maintenance procedures. Man-made storage ponds that are serviced by manipulated water sources, with inflow controlled by valves, and regularly maintained for the function of the Ray Stoyer WRF are not considered Waters of the U.S. and would not be subject to USACE regulations. Once drained, the artificial ponds would represent a dry area. The draining of the ponds would not directly or indirectly impact sensitive habitat as it is absent from the pond area, and pond draining would also not result in direct impacts on special-status animal species as none are expected to permanently reside in or use the aquatic habitat for breeding. Similarly, none of the special-status animal species with potential to occur would be expected to use the ponds for foraging or other temporary activities. As such, none would be displaced, stranded, or at a loss of foraging opportunities as a result of the draining of the ponds. Common (non-sensitive) animal species could be temporarily affected by the pond draining, but potential impacts on common species would be less than significant. Similar to other construction activities described above, filling (with soil) of the pond may have a potentially significant indirect impact from construction noise to coastal California gnatcatcher or least Bell’s vireo located in nearby sensitive habitat. Mitigation for these impacts are described above under the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo sections. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation. The project has been planned to site elements outside of sensitive natural communities and other sensitive biological resources. Project construction would further implement trenchless construction where sensitive biological resources occur along proposed pipeline alignments. Nevertheless, there are portions of the project that would still result in potentially significant direct impacts to sensitive natural communities, largely due to the inability to implement trenchless construction methods for all pipelines. The various project components and construction methods are shown on Figures 2 through 9.
As a standard construction practice and regulatory requirement, the District will implement BMPs during construction, which may include, but not be limited to:
• Maintaining the project area free of trash and debris; • Employing appropriate standard spill prevention practices and clean-up materials; • Installing and maintaining sediment and erosion control measures; • Maintaining effective control of fugitive dust; and • Properly storing, handling, and disposing of all toxins and pollutants including waste materials.
Open-cut trenching and above-ground construction, including associated staging and storage areas, would result in temporary impacts to sensitive natural communities. The inlet to Lake Jennings would be
38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 constructed as a rip-rap channel that follows the general slope down to the lake, but with periodic steps to create cascades and to slow water velocity; this component would result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive natural communities because it would result in permanent loss of Diegan coastal sage scrub and freshwater marsh associated with the lake shore. Therefore, impacts on sensitive natural communities from the inlet would be considered potentially significant. This impact would be mitigated to less than significant with implementation of CFMP Bio-2A, which would mitigate the impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and freshwater marsh through compensation of habitat loss in accordance with the mitigation ratios provided in the mitigation measure.
The project also includes the construction of a 3-inch diameter aeration pipeline (such as copper or other appropriate material) extending into Lake Jennings and associated aeration blower building and generator on the lake shore (Figure 5). The aeration pipeline would potentially be installed via a method where the pipeline would be towed into position along the lake surface. Pre-cast concrete ballast blocks would be connected to the pipeline at regular intervals causing it to sink to the reservoir bottom. It is anticipated that construction of these components would cause temporary displacement of sediment, which would resettle after placement of the pipeline. Since the pipeline would be a structure placed within the reservoir, the placement of the pipeline would not be considered an impact. In addition, placement of the pipeline at the bottom of the reservoir would not result in the net loss of aquatic resources function or services, would not result in any measurable change in elevation of the reservoir bottom, nor would it reduce habitat for wildlife; including invertebrates and micro biota. In addition, the building and generator would be constructed on non-sensitive upland habitat. Therefore, impacts from the aeration pipeline and blower building and generator would therefore be less than significant.
Table 6, Impacts to Vegetation Communities Within the Disturbance Area, shows the total acreage of temporary and permanent impacts to vegetation communities within the disturbance area.
Table 6 IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE DISTURBANCE AREA
Acres2 Vegetation Community1 Temporary Permanent Total Developed 90.3 --- 90.3 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed) 5.4 3.0 8.4 Disturbed Habitat 15.9 1.0 16.9 Freshwater Marsh3 --- 0.03 0.03 Mule Fat Scrub 0.02 -- 0.02 Non-native Grassland 0.6 0.7 1.3 Non-native Riparian 0.11 -- 0.11 Non-native Vegetation 4.0 --- 4.0 Open Water4 ------Southern Willow Scrub (including disturbed) 0.18 -- 0.18 Source: HELIX 2018c 1 Vegetation categories and numerical codes are from Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008). 2 Habitats are rounded to the nearest 0.1 acre; thus, totals reflect rounding. 3 Freshwater Marsh impacts are limited to the Lake Jennings shoreline, which is primarily inundated and characterized by partially submerged vegetation (Typha sp., Scirpus sp.) and as such will be mitigated in accordance with ratios assigned to Open Water. 4 Subaqueous installation of aerator pipeline and the Lake Jennings Inlet would require temporary activities on water surface, such as use of boats and other activities that already occur on the lake at a regular basis. These would not be considered impacts to open water.
39 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Implementation of CFMP PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Bio-2A would ensure that permanent impacts are compensated in accordance with regional standards for mitigation ratios, and project-level mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-7 provides specific requirements for how these mitigation ratios would be achieved.
Limited Nutrient Availability for Aquatic Ecosystems
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has expressed concern on the proposed ECAWP Project’s potential to result in a recreational fishery reservoir becoming oligotrophic or nutrient deficient, which would negatively impact the aquatic resources in the lake. CDFW suggested in the CFMP PEIR review comment letter that the District should demonstrate that the purified water has sufficient nutrient concentrations to maintain current fishery populations and that the water storage time is sufficient to allow for those nutrients to be adequately stored in the reservoir.
The Lake Jennings reservoir is considered a “terminal” reservoir. Ninety percent of the water stored in the reservoir is from imported water via the imported water aqueducts. The primary role of the reservoir is a public water supply. Lake Jennings has historically been a low nutrient reservoir, primarily due to the lack of nutrients in the imported water supplied to the reservoir. Additionally, water quality management efforts such as lake aeration and limited water residence are undertaken to maintain the higher water quality in the reservoir. Aqueduct imported water quality varies depending on the water source (Colorado River or State Water Project supply), but imported supplies are historically phosphorus limited. Over the past 15 years, total phosphorus concentrations in the aqueduct imported water supplies have averaged 0.03 mg/L and have varied from 0.01 mg/L to 0.08 mg/L.4 Total phosphorus concentrations in Lake Jennings are similarly low. Sampling conducted in Lake Jennings during 2012-2013, for example, showed median orthophosphate concentrations of 0.01 mg/L.5
Water quality, including the nutrient concentrations, of any point discharge to Lake Jennings is regulated by the RWQCB according to the San Diego Region Basin Plan. To ensure that biostimulation effects do not adversely impact designated beneficial uses, the Basin Plan establishes the nutrient/biostimulation objectives and requirements applicable to Lake Jennings. Per the Basin Plan, total phosphorus in any standing water body is limited to 0.025 mg/L. The Basin Plan does not establish analogous concentration standards for total nitrogen, but instead requires that natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P) are to be identified and upheld.
The purified water is near distilled in water quality but still contain nutrients similar to imported water supply. The purified water is projected to have total nitrogen concentrations ranging from 2 to 3 mg/L depending on the number of RO stages to be used in production of the purified water. Compliance with a purified water total phosphorus concentration standard of 0.025 mg/L will also be assured. Therefore, it is projected that with implementation of the purified water augmentation, the phosphorus-limited conditions in the lake would still be maintained.
4 See Figure C-27, aqueduct imported water total phosphorus during 2001-2008, as reported in Reservoir Augmentation Demonstration Project, Limnology and Reservoir Detention Study of San Vicente Reservoir Calibration of the Water Quality Model (Flow Science, Inc., 2012), available at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/water/purewater/pdf/projectreports/limnologytm1.pdf. 5 Based on Lake Jennings receiving water quality data provided to Padre Dam by the Helix Water District for the period 2012-2013.
40 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
The District completed hydrodynamic modeling of the proposed SWA project at Lake Jennings. According to the calibrated hydrodynamic model, hydraulic residence time of 3.5 mgd of purified water in Lake Jennings would be 24 months on average. The hydraulic residence time of the approximately 10.5 mgd of purified water in Lake Jennings is estimated to be approximately 8 months on average. The purified water is projected to stay in the reservoir for adequate time to mix with the native water in the reservoir and be part of the natural aquatic system before being pulled out from the reservoir.
The District does not anticipate the augmenting of purified water into Lake Jennings to change the nutrient profile of the reservoir and recreational fishery at Lake Jennings. Helix Water District, owner and operator of Lake Jennings, has historically maintained a recreation program that included fish stocking and fish habitat creation. These efforts have produced the current fish productivity levels in the reservoir. It is expected that the same efforts will continue after AWP Project implementation at Lake Jennings to maintain the existing fish productivity levels. There is a lack of supporting data to suggest that the Lake Jennings fishery will be substantially affected.
In response to the CDFW concerns, however, and in an effort to gain a better understanding of any impactseffects, positive or negative, of putting purified water into Lake Jennings, the District is conducting an 18-month long ecological assessment that will simulate a scaled version of SWA. The pilot test will put purified water from the current AWP Demonstration Facility into Pond B, one of the District’s man-made, seasonal ponds, to assess the potential effects on the ecosystem. The study involves monthly water quality sampling consisting of chemical, physiochemical, and biochemical variables from the surface water and pond sediments and monitoring of fish and avian use of the pond and surrounding habitat. Aquatic vegetation, aquatic invertebrates, and fish will be sampled and quantified in accordance with the sampling work plan developed for the pilot test.
If the results of the ecological assessment conclude that issues to water quality or fish population could occur at Lake Jennings, the District would develop a fisheries management plan for the proposed ECAWP project with the input from Helix Water District.
Sensitive natural communities are not anticipated to be impacted from the water quality with augmentation of purified water as described above, and the lake’s elevation would have negligible changes due to the SWA from the proposed project. Additionally, species within the Lake Jennings fishery are not considered sensitive species that would require protection. Therefore, impacts on limited nutrient availability for aquatic ecosystems would be less than significant.
Filling of Artificial Ponds
The expansion of facilities at the Ray Stoyer WRF would also fill in man-made, seasonal Ponds A and B. As described above under Section IV(a), this would occur through draining the ponds and then filling in the dry bed with soil. The ponds are not considered Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State and would not be subject to USACE regulations. Draining of the artificial ponds would not directly impact sensitive natural communities as they are absent from the area.
Indirect Impacts from Construction Staging and Storage Areas
Construction staging and storage areas would be primarily within the road rights-of-way, developed areas, or previously disturbed areas and would not result in impacts to sensitive biological resources. If not properly contained and restricted to allowed work areas, inadvertent impacts to sensitive natural communities could occur, including from the filling of the artificial ponds. These impacts would be
41 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 considered significant. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H, CFMP Bio-1J, and CFMP Bio-1K would reduce potential inadvertent construction impacts to less than significant because the mitigation measures would provide orange construction fencing denoting sensitive resources and provide construction monitoring by a qualified biologist (CFMP Bio-1H), design final project staging areas to avoid sensitive habitat (CFMP Bio-1J), and would provide contractor training by a qualified biologist to avoid sensitive resources (CFMP Bio-1K). c) Would the project 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. The project has been specifically planned to avoid federally- protected wetlands and other potential jurisdictional features to the maximum extent. Permanent impacts to 0.6 acres of freshwater marsh would occur at Lake Jennings as a result of construction of the inlet to Lake Jennings. This impact would be considered potentially significant. As a regulatory requirement, the District would notify and obtain necessary permits from responsible agencies of the project, including the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures CFMP Bio-3B and CFMP Bio-3C would ensure that the appropriate permits are obtained and that the impact is compensated in accordance with USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW requirements. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant. Trenchless construction is proposed in areas that cross the San Diego River, which functions as a wildlife corridor. Construction in these areas will be restricted to existing developed land and is not anticipated to interfere with wildlife movement or nursery functions. Impacts to wildlife movement and nursery site would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The project would not conflict with any City or County policies or ordinances and no impact would occur. f) Would the project 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 with mitigation. The District is not a participating entity of any adopted habitat conservation plans for the region, such as the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP); therefore, the project is not subject to any such plans and would have no conflicts.
In acknowledgement of City of San Diego and County MSCP Subarea Plans, the project has been planned to site developments in disturbed and developed areas to the extent possible. The southwestern portions of the EMG Force Main and residuals bypass system pipeline alignments pass through the City of San Diego Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA) north of the EMG Pump Station. Trenchless construction is proposed for this area and direct impacts to the MHPA are not anticipated.
42 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Implementation of mitigation measures proposed herein would ensure consistency with the adopted City of San Diego and County MSCP Subarea Plans.
Mitigation
The following PEIR mitigation measures, CFMP Bio-1B, would reduce potential impacts related to biological resourcesrare plants to a less than significant level. As the rare plant surveys have already been prepared, and as it has been determined that CFMP Bio-1D and Bio-1E would not be applicable to the proposed project, those portions of CFMP Bio-1B have been removed.
CFMP Bio-1B Rare Plant Avoidance and Mitigation. If a significant population of rare plant species with CNPS California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B is identified within a project impact area, then to the extent feasible to implement the project, the District shall avoid impacts to the population through project-level design changes and/or construction methods (e.g., trenchless installation of pipelines). The significance of the population shall be determined by the District-retained qualified biologist and analyzed during the project-level CEQA documentation, unless otherwise determined in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW.
If complete avoidance is determined not to be feasible, then the District shall restrict and minimize impacts to no more than 20 percent of the population, which is consistent with the regional standards identified for the MSCP. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts shall include one or a combination of the following and occur at a 1:1 to 3:1 ratio, depending on the sensitivity of the species and population size, as determined by the District-retained qualified biologist: a. Purchase of preservation credits of occupied habitat from a conservation bank approved by the USFWS and CDFW; b. Acquisition and preservation of off-site mitigation land containing occupied habitat; and/or c. Preparation and implementation of a rare plant salvage and relocation plan, to include the following requirements, at a minimum: i. Evaluation of options for plant salvage and relocation, including native plant mulching, selective soil salvaging, application of plant materials on manufactured slopes, and application/relocation of resources within existing or proposed preserved lands; ii. Seed collection and/or transplantation to a suitable receptor site based on the most reliable methods of successful relocation; iii. Recommendation for method of salvage and relocation/application based on feasibility of implementation and likelihood of success; and iv. Implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures.
The following PEIR mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to additional biological resources to a less than significant level.
43 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
CFMP Bio-1F Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent direct impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, protected under the federal MBTA and CFG Code, the District shall enforce the following:
Project activities requiring the removal and/or trimming of vegetation suitable for nesting birds shall occur outside of the general bird breeding season (January 15 to September 15) to the extent feasible. If the activities cannot avoid the general bird breeding season, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a pre-activity nesting bird survey within seven days prior to the activities to confirm the presence or absence of active bird nests. If no active bird nests are found by the qualified biologist, then the activities shall proceed with the reassurance that no violation to the MBTA and CFG Code would occur. If an active bird nest is found by the qualified biologist, then vegetation removal and/or trimming activities at the nest location shall not be allowed to occur until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. Avoidance buffers should start at 300 feet for passerine birds and 500 feet for raptors. However, buffers could be reduced at the discretion of the qualified biologist depending on the bird species and project activities required in the vicinity of the active nest.
CFMP Bio-1H Orange Construction Fencing and Construction Monitoring. The District shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities and 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. Once fencing is installed, the District and qualified biologist shall determine the need for additional inspections and monitoring activities throughout the duration of construction. If determined necessary by the District and qualified biologist, monitoring shall include inspection of construction work areas, including staging and storage areas, to confirm that activities are kept within the approved limits and that Best Management Practices are in place to prevent incidental animal entrapment and burrow and nest establishment within equipment and staged materials. Monitoring shall also include pre- activity surveys of construction and staging areas each morning on active construction sites to confirm special-status species remain absent from work areas. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, or if a trapped animal or burrow or nest is found, work in the affected areas shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified by the District and qualified biologist. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the District prior to and concurrent with construction.
CFMP Bio-1I Construction-Related Noise. If construction begins during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15), construction noise could affect the breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher and/or least Bell’s vireo. No loud construction noise (exceeding an hourly average of 60 dBA, or 3 dBA above hourly average ambient noise levels at the nesting site, whichever is higher) may take place within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15).
44 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Noise levels may be mitigated with a noise control barrier. The noise barriers may be 10 feet in height and be located between the facilities’ construction operations and adjacent sensitive habitat to the east and west of the project construction site.
The barriers shall be solid and may be constructed of masonry, wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those materials, with no cracks or gaps through or below the wall. Any seams or cracks should be filled or caulked. If wood is used, it can be tongue and groove or close butted seams and be at least ¾-inch thick or have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per SF. Sheet metal of 18 gauge (minimum) may be used, if it meets the other criteria and is properly supported and stiffened so that it does not rattle or create noise itself from vibration or wind. Noise blankets, hoods, or covers also may be used, provided they are appropriately implemented to provide the required sound attenuation.
The District 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 the acceptable levels listed above and shall have the ability to halt construction work, if necessary, and confer with the District, and if applicable, USFWS and CDFW, to ensure no breeding birds are adversely affected and additional protection measures are properly implemented during construction. The biologist shall report any violation to the USFWS and CDFW within 24 hours of its occurrence.
CFMP Bio-1J Construction Staging Areas. The District 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 District prior to mobilization and staging of equipment outside of the project boundaries.
CFMP Bio-1K Contractor Training. The District shall retain a qualified biologist to provide environmental awareness training by attending pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. This will also include training for new crewmembers who join the project crew after construction begins. The training shall educate crews on the 12 special status species with high potential to occur in the project area. The crews will be informed to not interfere with these species if seen, and to contact the qualified biologist immediately for additional avoidance and minimization measures.
CFMP Bio-2A Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities. The District shall compensate the loss of habitat according to the ratios provided in the table below, which could be adjusted during project-level studies and in coordination with the project biologist depending on where the compensatory mitigation would be located and whether the impacted habitat supports special-status species or other sensitive resources. Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, and open water shall not be adjusted below a 1:1 mitigation ratio consistent with the no-net-loss standard, unless otherwise conditioned in permits and/or discretionary approvals issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
45 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as applicable.
MITIGATION RATIOS FOR IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Sensitive Natural Community Mitigation Ratio Non-native grassland 0.5:1 Diegan coastal sage scrub 2:1 Southern willow scrub 3:1 Open water 1:1 1 Freshwater Marsh impacts are limited to the Lake Jennings shoreline, which is primarily inundated and characterized by partially submerged vegetation (Typha sp., Scirpus sp.) and as such will be mitigated in accordance with ratios assigned to Open Water.
CFMP Bio-3B Regulatory Permitting. Potentially significant temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands would occur at Lake Jennings as a result of the installation of the Lake Jennings inlet and aeration blower components of the project; therefore, the District shall complete the following:
• Prepare and submit notification to the USACE for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the U.S. pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 404;
• Prepare and submit a Clean Water Act Section 401 Request for Water Quality Certification or State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Report of Waste Discharge to the RWQCB for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the State; and
• Prepare and submit a CFG Code Section 1602 Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration to the CDFW for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional streambed and riparian habitat.
• The District shall mitigate impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetland in accordance with mitigation measure CFMP Bio-3C, unless otherwise specified in USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW regulatory permits.
CFMP Bio-3C Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources. The District shall implement compensatory mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1:1, which could be adjusted during permitting with the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, for the unavoidable loss of jurisdictional waters and wetlands, which would include one or a combination of the following measures:
• Purchase of preservation, establishment, re-establishment, rehabilitation and/or enhancement credits from a mitigation bank approved by the USACE and CDFW, such as the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank or another approved mitigation bank in the region.
• Implement Permittee-responsible preservation, establishment, re-establishment, rehabilitation and/or enhancement at an on- or off-site location approved by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW, including preparation and implementation of a
46 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
conceptual mitigation plan, habitat mitigation monitoring plan, restoration plan, and/or long-term management plan, unless otherwise specified by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW.
• Plans for restoration or revegetation should include, at a minimum: (a) the location of the mitigation site; (b) the plant species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) a schematic depicting the mitigation area; (d) planting schedule; (e) a description of the irrigation methodology; (f) measures to control exotic vegetation on site; (g) specific success criteria; (h) a detailed monitoring program; (i) contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and (j) identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation.
• A conservation easement, restrictive covenant, or other protection shall be recorded over the mitigation area and the area shall be managed in perpetuity in accordance with the long-term management plan, unless otherwise specified by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW.
The following project-specific mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to biological resources to a less than significant level.
ECAWP Bio-1 Avoidance of Rare Plants. Prior to initiating construction activities, the District shall require that the delicate clarkia and/or San Diego goldenstar locations depicted on Figure 8d and Figure 8l of the Biological Resources Technical Letter (Appendix C) are clearly shown on final construction plans. The District shall further require that the locations are demarcated in the field by a qualified biologist and protected-in-place through the installation of temporary construction fencing or alternative means that are approved by the qualified biologist. The qualified biologist shall monitor construction activities, as appropriate, to help ensure avoidance of the areas. A final compliance report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and submitted to the District for record verifying that no impacts occurred to the species. Any inadvertent and unavoidable impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1B from the PEIR.
ECAWP Bio-2 Pre-construction Gnatcatcher Surveys. If construction activities are planned to occur during the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 15 to September 15), then prior to initiating construction activities within 500 feet of off-site coastal California gnatcatcher locations depicted on Figures 8a, 8b, 8j, 8l, and 8m of Appendix C, the District shall retain a USFWS-permitted biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys to confirm the presence or absence of the species. The surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days prior to project construction, and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. If gnatcatchers are confirmed to be absent within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then no additional measures shall be required. If gnatcatchers are confirmed to be present, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-3.
ECAWP Bio-3 Avoidance of Gnatcatcher Breeding Season. If the results of pre-construction surveys from Mitigation Measure ECAWP Bio-2 determine the presence of coastal California
47 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
gnatcatcher within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then construction activities at these locations shall be completed outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 to August 31). If activities at these locations cannot avoid the gnatcatcher breeding season, then the District shall implement required monitoring pursuant to mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H and CFMP Bio-1I.
If, after implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H and CFMP Bio-1I, construction noise levels during the gnatcatcher breeding season cannot be reduced below a 60 dBA hourly average from the edge of occupied gnatcatcher habitat, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-4.
ECAWP Bio-4 USFWS Consultation and Conservation Measures. The District and/or federal action agency for the project shall consult with the USFWS regarding project-related adverse effects to the coastal California gnatcatcher and/or least Bell’s vireo, as appropriate. At a minimum, the following conservation measures shall be implemented by the District, unless otherwise prescribed by the USFWS:
• Prepare and implement a USFWS-approved plan to avoid disturbing nesting gnatcatchers and/or vireos, including construction and implementation of noise attenuation (e.g., sound walls, berms, blankets, etc.), monitoring noise levels to ensure that they are less than 60 dBA, and nest monitoring;
• Retain USFWS-approved biological monitor to conduct contractor training, monitor construction activities, and oversee installation and inspection of temporary fencing and erosion control measures; halt work, if necessary, and confer with the USFWS to ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection measures; and submit monthly reports (including photographs of impact areas) via regular mail or email to the USFWS during monitoring.
ECAWP Bio-5 Pre-construction Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys. If construction activities are planned to occur during the least Bell’s vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15), then prior to initiating construction activities within 500 feet of off-site vireo locations depicted on Figures 8a, 8b, and 8l of Appendix C, or in any project construction areas within 500 feet of least Bell’s vireo critical habitat, the District shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys to confirm the presence or absence of the species. The surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days prior to project construction, and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. If vireos are confirmed to be absent within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then no additional measures shall be required. If vireo are confirmed to be present, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-6.
ECAWP Bio-6 Avoidance of Vireo Breeding Season. If the results of pre-construction surveys from mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-5 determine the presence of least Bell’s vireo within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then construction activities at these locations shall be completed outside of the vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15). If activities at these locations cannot avoid the vireo breeding season, then the District shall implement required monitoring pursuant to mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H and CFMP Bio-1I.
48 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
If, after implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H and CFMP Bio-1I, construction noise levels during the vireo breeding season cannot be reduced below a 60 dBA hourly average from the edge of occupied vireo habitat, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-4.
ECAWP Bio-7 Project-Level Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities. The District shall implement compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts in accordance with the ratios from mitigation measure CFMP Bio-2A and through one or a combination of the following measures:
• Purchase of off-site conservation credits from a conservation bank in the region;
• Implementation of on- and/or off-site habitat preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement, including preparation and implementation of a conceptual mitigation plan, habitat mitigation monitoring plan, restoration plan, and/or long- term management plan. The mitigation areas shall be of equivalent or superior function as determined in consultation with a qualified biologist.
The District shall restore or revegetate temporary impact areas at a 1:1 ratio through the preparation and implementation of a restoration plan, which shall include the following, as prepared by a qualified biologist or restoration specialist, at a minimum:
• Location of the restoration site; • Plant species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates; • Schematic depicting the restoration area; • Planting schedule; • Description of the irrigation methodology; • Measures to control exotic vegetation on site; • Specific success criteria; • Monitoring program; • Contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and • Identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
49 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Discussion
Cultural resources are frequently defined in terms of tangible materials attributed to a culture. These include districts, sites, structures, artifacts, and other evidence of human use considered important to a culture or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. Resources may be historical, archaeological, architectural, or archival in nature. Cultural resources may also consist of less tangible attributes, such as landscapes considered sacred to particular groups. These resources can provide clues about prehistoric and historic era human behaviors, and provide scientific, religious, and other valuable educational information about the cultural past.
As noted in Section 4.4 of the CFMP PEIR, the Ray Stoyer WRF expansion, AWTP facility, and AWP Pipeline were identified as having the potential to intersect known cultural resources. Therefore, in accordance with PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Cul-1, a project-level Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment was performed (HELIX 2018d) which included a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, review of historic aerial photographs and maps, a historic resources assessment, and a pedestrian survey. The Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment is attached as Appendix D to this IS/MND.
The area of potential effect (APE) evaluated for the project included the following areas:
• the Ray Stoyer WRF property; • the proposed Dechlorination Facility site; • the Lake Jennings project disturbance area; • the EMG Pump Station disturbance area; • a 50-foot disturbance corridor for the proposed EMG force main alignment; • a 50-foot disturbance corridor for the Residuals Bypass System; • a 50-foot disturbance corridor for the proposed AWP Pipeline alignment; and • potential staging areas and unpaved access roads.
Historical resource is a term with a defined statutory meaning (refer to PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) and (b)). The term applies to any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR includes California resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as well as certain California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest. The CRHR criteria for listing define historical resources as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or cultural annals of California; and meets any of the following criteria:
50 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3)).
In addition to federal and state regulations for cultural resources, the District approved a Native American Sacred Resources Policy with the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians in August 2014 which establishes guidelines for planning and construction of District projects that may have potential impacts on any Native American burial site, sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The results of the record search conducted as part of the project-specific analysis identified three historic resources within the project’s APE and are listed in Table 7, Historical Resources within the Project Area, and are described below. A historic resource assessment for the built environment was conducted as part of the project analysis, focusing on the resources associated with the El Monte Pump Station.
The proposed Dechlorination Facility would be constructed at the El Monte Pump Station (P-37-034482). Historic-period elements of the El Monte Pump Station include the pumphouse, a small outbuilding, pipes, and associated concrete features. The El Monte Pump Station was substantially redeveloped in the 1930s by the La Mesa, Lemon Grove, and Spring Valley Irrigation District (today’s Helix Water District), with construction of a new pumping plant and pumphouse taking place in 1937. The pump station was in operation until the 1980s, and eventually was replaced by the H. Warren Buckner Pump Station, which was constructed in the 1990s within the same Helix Water District property. The pumphouse still contains the 1937 pumps, motors, valves, and switchboards. The pipelines running upslope from the El Monte Pump Station (P-37-034486) were constructed in 1925 and 1942. The El Monte Pump Station (P-37-034482) and pipelines (P-37-034486) do not have significance for direct association with an event or pattern of events important to the history of the nation, state, or San Diego County; do not have a direct association with the work for which a historically important individual is primarily known; do not have architectural or engineering significance or significance in the history of pump technology and hydraulic engineering; and are unlikely to yield further information important in history. As such, the resources are ineligible for listing in the CRHR and the project would not result in a significant impact to the resources and no mitigation measures would be necessary.
The 35.6-mile San Diego Flume (CA-SDI-11296) was constructed between 1886 and 1889 and conveyed water from Cuyamaca Dam to the La Mesa Reservoir until 1936. The El Monte Tunnel, located within the project APE, is one the four named tunnels shown on the 1893 El Cajon 15-minute USGS topographic map. According to an 1889 magazine article, all of the flume tunnels were constructed in a similar manner and were six-feet square with arched ceilings (Fire Engineering Magazine 1889). The El Monte
51 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Tunnel, is 365 feet in length and was constructed through granitic bedrock. The two entrances of the El Monte Tunnel are aligned north-south and are identical in construction (Crawford et al. 2015). The façades of the entrances are 7 feet tall and 11 feet wide and were designed in a decorative fashion, with cut local granitic boulders framing the entryway. The flume itself is no longer present; the only remaining components of the resource are the benchcut, the tunnels, and other features such as rock walls. A portion of the proposed AWP pipeline would route through the El Monte Tunnel towards Lake Jennings. The San Diego Flume (CA-SDI-11296), and the segment of the resource within the project (the El Monte Tunnel and the associated entrances), has been evaluated as eligible for listing in the CRHR for its important role in the region’s history and its representation as a major engineering achievement.
Based on the results of the project-specific cultural assessment, one historical resource may be affected by the proposed project. Impacts to the San Diego Flume (CA-SDI-11296) would constitute a significant environmental effect under CEQA because the resource has been identified as historically significant. The AWP Pipeline alignment would utilize the existing El Monte Tunnel of the flume; implementation of ECAWP CUL-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that this segment of project be designed in coordination with a qualified Historic Preservation Specialist and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and measures following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties be followed.
Table 7 HISTORICAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Resource Number Description NRHP/CRHP Eligibility CA-SDI-11296 San Diego Flume constructed Eligible for listing in the CRHR (Criteria 1 and (P-37-011296) between 1887 and 1888 3) and recommended as eligible for the NRHP (Criteria A and C). P-37-034482 El Monte Pump Station Not eligible. P-37-034486 Historic pipeline associated with the Not eligible. El Monte Pump Station’s distribution network. Source: HELIX 2018d b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Five archaeological resources were identified in the vicinity of the project APE and are listed in Table 8, Archaeological Resources within the Project Area, and are described below.
CA-SDI-133 is a sensitive archaeological area within Sycamore Canyon. Several individual archaeological sites have been identified within the overall mapped boundary of CA-SDI-133; however, none of the identified sites are within the project APE. CA-SDI-13815 would not be impacted by the project; it is located over 40 feet from the area of project disturbance, primarily within the boundaries of MCAS Miramar. A data recovery program was previously implemented for CA-SDI-10148 to mitigate the impacts to the site from the development of the EMG Pump Station. P-37-037289 is an isolate, and as such, is ineligible for listing in the CRHR. LJ-S-001 comprises four milling elements on a bedrock outcrop measuring 40 meters (130 feet) by 10 meters (30 feet). This resource is unevaluated for listing in the CRHR, but it is located outside of the limits of the access road, and any grading or scraping required for
52 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 the road would not expand beyond the existing road width. As such, the resource would not be impacted by the project.
Table 8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA
Resource Number Description NRHP/CRHP Eligibility CA-SDI-133 Prehistoric resource; None of the individual resources that make (P-37-000133) archaeologically sensitive area of up this overall “site” are within the APE. Sycamore Canyon; several individual sites have been identified within the overall “site” boundary. CA-SDI-10148 Prehistoric habitation site; not Eastern portion of the site located within (P-37-010148) relocated within the APE but the City of Santee and Caltrans right-of-way assumed to still exist as previously evaluated as not significant; western documented. portion within City of San Diego evaluated as not significant and later changed to significant. A data recovery program has mitigated the impacts to the site within the EMG Pump Station property. CA-SDI-13815 Prehistoric habitation site; not Not evaluated; will not be impacted by the (P-37-013812) relocated within the APE but project. assumed to still exist as previously documented. P-37-037289 Prehistoric isolate. Not eligible. LJ-S-001 Prehistoric site. Not evaluated; will not be impacted by the project. Source: HELIX 2018d
The results of the records search identified numerous prehistoric archaeological resources located within a half-mile radius of the project. In addition, portions of the force main alignment and AWP pipeline alignment are located within the San Diego River valley, which is sensitive for prehistoric cultural resources, and also situated in an alluvial setting in proximity to known sites. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on January 31, 2018 for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and list of Native American contacts for the project area. The NAHC indicated in a response dated February 1, 2018 that the El Cajon quadrangle is sensitive for cultural resources. Letters were sent on March 6, 2018 to Native American representatives and interested parties identified by the NAHC. One response has been received to date from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians on March 19, 2018, who requested that a Kumeyaay Cultural Monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities to inform them of any inadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts. While the project would not directly impact known archaeological resources, the project is sensitive for cultural resources. There is a potential for previously unknown buried cultural resources to be encountered during ground-disturbing activities and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of ECAWP Cul-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level because any previously unidentified cultural material will be documented and assessed for significance, and treated appropriately, as applicable.
53 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The PEIR notes that surficial and geologic units in the District’s service areas exhibit paleontological resource sensitivity levels of zero (topsoil/fill deposits and igneous granitic/gabbroic rocks), marginal (Mesozoic volcanic/metavolcanic and metamorphic rocks), and low (alluvium), and associated potential impacts from implementation of CFMP projects, including the proposed project, was determined to be less than significant. The District’s service areas also include relatively extensive deposits of Tertiary sedimentary rocks (particularly in the District’s WSA) that exhibit moderate to high paleontological resource sensitivity (with these formations also potentially underlying additional areas). Tertiary sedimentary rock deposits underlie the Ray Stoyer WRF site (including the proposed SHERF and AWTP facility; refer to CFMP PEIR Figure 4.6-1) and impacts to paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of CFMP Pal-1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Unique geological features generally are defined to include geologic structures, formations, or other features that exhibit unusual or important characteristics in the context of scientific information (e.g., rare geologic/mineral assemblages or structural features), or cultural perception (e.g., prominent, unusual, and/or aesthetically pleasing rock outcrops, exposures or landmarks). The U.S. Park Service (USPS) maintains a listing of National Natural Landmarks (NNLs), with such designations in California including sites such as major faults, large parks/preserves, and diverse fossil assemblages. While there are four NNLs located in San Diego County, none are within or adjacent to the proposed project area. Therefore, impacts to unique geological features would be less than significant. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than significant impact. Formal cemeteries are known within the service areas; however, none of the CFMP projects, including the proposed project, are proposed within their boundaries. It is, therefore, not expected that construction activities of the proposed project would disturb formal cemeteries. 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 project would have the potential to unintentionally disturb human remains, resulting in a significant impact. As discussed in Section 3.4.2 of the PEIR, during construction activities the District would comply with PRC Section 5097.98 and California State HSC 7050.5 upon unintentional discovery or disturbance of human remains. With regulatory compliance, CFMP projects, including the proposed project, would result in less than significant impacts to human remains.
Mitigation
The following measures would mitigate the potentially significant impacts to cultural resources to less- than-significant levels.
ECAWP Cul-1 Preservation of Historical Significance of the El Monte Tunnel of the San Diego Flume. The portion of the AWP Pipeline through the El Monte Tunnel shall be designed in coordination with a qualified Historic Preservation Specialist and the State Historic Preservation Officer. Design measures following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be developed to avoid adverse impacts to the historical resource and preserve the character-defining features of the
54 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
resource. Permanent impacts to the decorative exterior façades of the tunnel entrances shall be avoided and all measures and design options for the treatment of the resource shall be developed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Restoration, or Reconstruction, as appropriate.
ECAWP Cul-2 Construction Monitoring and Recovery of Cultural Resources. During project construction activities for the project, the District’s construction manager shall retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the standards identified in the District Native American Sacred Resources Policy. A Native American monitor that meets the standards identified in the District Native American Sacred Resources Policy shall also be retained. The archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be present to monitor initial ground disturbance for the project for all open-cut trenching activities and excavations for the launching and receiving pits for trenchless construction methods within young (Holocene) alluvial deposits (see Figure 5 of Appendix D). Monitoring of ground disturbing actives within District right-of-way, the Ray Stoyer WRF site, and the Operations Center site, which are listed as exemptions in the District’s Native American Sacred Resources Policy, would not be required. If it is determined by the archaeologist and Native American monitor that past grading and other disturbances have removed soils with a reasonable potential for containing cultural material, monitoring can be discontinued. If cultural material is encountered, the archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity while the cultural material is documented and assessed. If cultural resources are encountered, the District shall comply with Section VI of the PDMWD Native American Sacred Resources Policy, AB 52, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, as applicable. If discovered cultural resources are potential historical resources, the District shall comply with Section VIII of the District Native American Sacred Resources Policy and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, as applicable.
Recovered artifactual materials shall be cataloged and analyzed. The District shall comply with Section VI of the District Native American Sacred Resources Policy and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, as applicable. A report shall be completed by the qualified archaeologist describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. The report shall be submitted to the District for review and approval. Artifacts collected (if any) shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards and transferred to an appropriate curating facility within San Diego County.
CFMP Pal-1 Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared prior to construction of CFMP projects that could directly affect geologic formations with moderate or high paleontological resource sensitivity (Tertiary sedimentary rocks, as shown on Figure 4.6-1 of the PEIR). A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the District to carry out and manage the plan. Fieldwork may be carried out by a qualified paleontological monitor working under the direction of the paleontologist. Components of the Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include, but not be limited to:
55 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
1. The paleontologist shall attend all pre-grading meetings to inform the grading and excavation contractors of the paleontological resource mitigation program and shall consult with them with respect to its implementation.
2. The paleontological monitor shall be on site at all times during the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of Moderate-to-High resource sensitivity formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
3. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or monitor shall recover them. In instances where recovery requires an extended salvage time, the paleontologist or monitor shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist or monitor, a screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall be set up.
4. Recovered fossils, along with copies of pertinent field notes, photographs, and maps, shall be deposited (with the District’s permission) in a scientific institution with paleontological collections. A final summary report that outlines the results of the mitigation program shall be completed. This report shall include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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?
56 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Discussion a) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. The project area, like much of southern California, is within a broad, seismically active region characterized by a series of northwest-trending faults associated with the San Andreas Fault System. The closest mapped active faults are associated with the Rose Canyon Fault Zone to the west and the Elsinore Fault Zone to the east. The areas within the vicinity of the project components are not underlain by any known active or potentially active faults and are not located within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones delineated by the California Geological Survey. Accordingly, the potential for earthquake-related ground rupture and/or related effects is considered generally low, although such potential cannot be completely eliminated.
Assessment of potential site-specific ground rupture hazards would be assessed as part of the initial project-specific screening conducted by the District. However, prior to initial project-level ground rupture risk screening, impacts are conservatively assessed as potentially significant. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Geo-1.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the proposed project is seismic ground shaking associated with earthquake events along one or more regional active faults in the area. Ground shaking can affect the integrity of project facilities; therefore, the proposed project would potentially be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking hazards from earthquake events along major regional faults. Accordingly, ground shaking could potentially result in
57 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 significant impacts to the proposed project facilities such as structures and pipelines. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Geo-1.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Liquefaction is the phenomenon whereby soils subjected to seismic (or other) ground shaking effects exhibit a loss of shear strength and demonstrate fluid-like flow behavior due to excess pore pressure. Loose, granular (low clay/silt content) and saturated soils with relative densities of less than approximately 70 percent are most susceptible to these effects, with liquefaction potential greatest at depths of less than approximately 50 feet. Surface and near surface manifestations from these events can include loss of support for structures/ foundations, pavement, and utilities; dynamic settlement (including volume reductions in dry soils); lateral spreading (i.e., horizontal displacement on sloped surfaces as a result of underlying liquefaction), and ground lurching (a permanent displacement or shift of the ground surface).
Figure 4.6-4a of the PEIR identifies liquefaction potential zones for the District’s WSA, most of which are associated with alluvial deposits along the San Diego River corridor and its tributaries. The following project components would not be located in a potential liquefaction area: the aeration building on the west side of Lake Jennings and the inlet and water feature on the north side of Lake Jennings. Impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant at these locations. The remaining project components are planned for locations in potential liquefaction areas. Proposed facilities in these areas may be at risk for liquefaction, and related impacts would be potentially significant; however, implementation of PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Geo-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than- significant level.
Iv) Landslides?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The occurrence of landslides and other types of slope failures (e.g., rock falls and mudflows) is influenced by a number of factors, including slope grade, geologic and soil characteristics, moisture levels and vegetation cover. Landslides can be triggered by a variety of potentially destabilizing conditions or events, such as gravity, fires, precipitation, grading and seismic activity. Landslide risk would be increased in areas where slopes exceed 25 percent.
Figure 4.6-4a of the PEIR identifies areas within the District’s WSA where slopes exceed 25 percent. The majority of the proposed project components are not located in areas where slopes exceed 25 percent and therefore would not be at substantial risk from landslides. The proposed aeration building and AWP pipeline from the dechlorination station to the El Monte Tunnel, however, are located in an area where slopes exceed 25 percent. These facilities would be at risk for landslides and impacts would be potentially significant. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Geo-1. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the potential for erosion, soil loss, and sedimentation both within and downstream of the site during and after construction. Specifically, proposed activities would involve: (1) removal of surface stabilizing features (e.g., vegetation); (2) excavation of compacted materials; and (3) redeposition of excavated and/or imported material as backfill in proposed development areas. While graded/excavated areas and fill materials would ultimately be stabilized through efforts such as compaction and
58 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 installation of structures/hardscape and landscaping, erosion potential would be higher in the short- term than for existing conditions. Developed areas would be especially susceptible to erosion between the beginning of grading/construction and the installation of pavement or establishment of permanent cover in landscaped areas. The off-site transport of sediment could also potentially result in effects to downstream receiving water quality, such as increased turbidity and the provision of a transport mechanism for other contaminants that tend to adhere to sediment particles (e.g., hydrocarbons), and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of project-level mitigation measure ECAWP Geo-1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Additionally, since the project’s area of ground disturbance would be greater than one acre, the District would obtain permit coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), as required by the Clean Water Act for construction- related stormwater discharges. Compliance with the NPDES permit would include implementation of a SWPPP that incorporates sediment control and erosion control measures. c) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. As described in Section VI.a, the proposed aeration building and inlet water feature at Lake Jennings would be located in areas that are at risk for landslides, and the remaining components of the proposed project would be located in areas with high risk of liquefaction. Due to the location of proposed project components in areas with unstable soils, related impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Geo-1 would reduce potential impacts related to unstable soils to a less-than-significant level. d) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. Expansive (or shrink-swell) behavior in soils is attributable to the water-holding capacity of clay minerals and can adversely affect the integrity of facilities such as foundations, pavement, and underground pipelines. A number of native topsoils within the project area exhibit moderate or high expansion potential (refer to Figures 4.6-4a of the PEIR).
The majority of the project site is not located in areas with potential expansive soils; however, segments of the AWP pipeline on Mast Boulevard would be located in areas mapped as high potential for expansive soils (refer to CFMP PEIR Figure 4.6-4a) and related impacts would be potentially significant. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Geo-1. e) Would the project 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 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 project would not affect existing sewer service. No impact would occur.
59 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Mitigation
The following PEIR mitigation measure would mitigate the potentially significant impacts identified in to less than significant levels.
CFMP Geo-1 Conduct Site-specific Geotechnical Investigation. A site-specific geotechnical investigation will be completed to identify site-specific criteria related to considerations such as grading, excavation, fill, and structure/facility design. All applicable results and recommendations from the geotechnical investigation will be incorporated into the associated individual project design and construction documents to address identified potential geologic and soil hazards, including but not necessarily limited to: (1) seismic hazards including ground rupture, ground acceleration (ground shaking), soil liquefaction (and related issues such as dynamic settlement and lateral spreading), landslides/slope instability, and seiche effects; and (2) non-seismic hazards including manufactured slope instability, subsidence/compressible soils, expansive or corrosive soils, and trench/excavation instability. The final project design and construction documents will also encompass applicable standard design and construction practices from established regulatory/industry sources including the CBC, IBC, CGS, Greenbook and District standards, as well as the results/recommendations of geotechnical review and field observations/testing to be conducted during project excavation, grading and construction activities (with all related requirements to be included in applicable engineering/design drawings and construction contract specifications). A summary of the types of remedial measures typically associated with identified potential seismic hazards, pursuant to applicable regulatory and industry standards, is provided below. The remedial measures identified/recommended as part of the described site-specific geotechnical investigation will take priority over the more general types of standard regulatory/industry measures provided herein.
• Ground Rupture: (1) Locate (or relocate) applicable facilities away from known active (or potentially active) faults and outside of associated CGS Earthquake Fault Zones; and (2) require appropriate (typically 50-foot) building exclusion buffers (setbacks) on either side of applicable fault traces.
• Ground Acceleration (Ground Shaking): (1) Incorporate applicable seismic loading factors (e.g., IBC/CBC/CGS criteria) into the design of facilities such as structures, foundations/slabs, pavement, pipelines, utilities, manufactured slopes, retaining walls and drainage facilities; (2) use remedial grading techniques where appropriate (e.g., removing/replacing and/or reconditioning unsuitable soils); and (3) use properly engineered fill per applicable industry/regulatory standards (e.g., IBC/CBC/CGS), including criteria such as appropriate fill composition, placement methodology, compaction levels, and moisture content.
• Liquefaction and Related Effects: (1) Remove unsuitable soils and replace with engineered fill (as previously described), per applicable regulatory/industry standards (e.g., IBC/CBC/CGS); (2) employ measures such as deep soil mixing (i.e., introducing cement to consolidate loose soils) or use of subsurface structures (e.g., stone columns or piles) to provide support (i.e., by extending structures into competent underlying units); (3) use appropriate surface drainage and/or subdrains
60 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
in applicable areas to avoid or reduce near-surface saturation; and (4) design for potential settlement of liquefiable materials through means such as use of post- tensioned foundations and/or flexible couplings for utility connections.
• Landslides/Slope Instability: (1) Construct properly drained shear keys and/or replace susceptible deposits with manufactured buttress fills where appropriate; (2) employ applicable slope laybacks (i.e., shallower slopes) and/or structural setbacks; (3) incorporate structures such as retaining walls and stability fills where appropriate to provide support; (4) provide protective walls or other barriers in areas susceptible to landslides; and (5) implement proper slope drainage and landscaping where applicable per established regulatory/industry standards (e.g., IBC/CBC/CGS).
• Seiche Effects: Implement scour protection measures such as appropriate pipeline depths, and use of armoring (e.g., concrete or riprap covers) or other protection devices (e.g., barriers) for applicable projects that cross drainages and rivers.
• Manufactured Slope Instability: (1) Limit slope grades to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or other applicable ratios based on site-specific conditions and the results of slope stability analyses (if recommended as part of the geotechnical analyses); (2) employ similar strategies regarding slope laybacks, structure setbacks and support/ protective structures as outlined above under the discussion of Landslides/Slope Instability; (3) provide appropriate short- and long-term drainage control, such as slope drains and/or brow ditches to avoid/minimize runoff on slopes; and (4) utilize native and/or drought-tolerant landscaping varieties, as well as “smart” irrigation systems (e.g., appropriate water schedules and rain/pressure-sensitive sensors/ shutoff devices) to minimize irrigation and associated runoff.
• Subsidence/Compression: (1) Use standard efforts such as over-excavation and recompaction or replacement of unsuitable materials with engineered fill, and enhanced foundation design in applicable areas (e.g., post-tensioned or mat slab foundations); (2) use engineered fill, subdrains, surcharging (i.e., loading prior to construction to induce settlement) and/or settlement monitoring (e.g., through the use of settlement monuments) in appropriate areas; (3) implement groundwater withdrawal monitoring/restrictions per established legal/regulatory/industry standards (if applicable).
• Collapsible Soils: (1) Over-excavation and recompaction or replacement of unsuitable materials with engineered fill; (2) deep soil mixing, use of subsurface structures to provide support, and proper surface drainage/subdrains (as described above under Liquefaction); and (3) surcharging (as described above under Subsidence/Compression).
• Expansive Soils: (1) Replace and/or mix expansive materials with non-expansive fill; and (2) cap expansive soils in place with an appropriate thickness of non-expansive fill per established regulatory/industry standards (e.g., IBC/CBC).
61 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
• Corrosive Soils: (1) Remove unsuitable deposits and replace with non-corrosive fill; (2) use corrosion-resistant construction materials (e.g., corrosion-resistant concrete and coated or non-metallic facilities); or (3) install cathodic protection devices (e.g., use of a more easily corroded “sacrificial metal” to serve as an anode and draw current away from the structure to be protected) per established regulatory/industry standards (e.g., IBC/CBC).
• Trench/Excavation Instability: (1) Limit trench and other excavation depths and side slope grades to the minimum feasible levels; (2) provide shoring and/or other protective systems (e.g., benching and shielding) for applicable trenches/ excavations, pursuant to associated regulatory standards (e.g., OSHA and Cal- OSHA); (3) restrict heavy equipment/vehicle access and material/soil stockpiles near trenches/excavations; and (4) inspect trenches/excavations and related conditions/facilities at the start of each shift and after precipitation (or other water intrusion) events.
ECAWP Geo-1 Construction Best Management Practices. The following best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented, as appropriate, during project construction to reduce potential for erosion soil loss, and/or sedimentation to a less than significant level:
• Sediment shall be retained on the site.
• Sediment basins, traps, or similar control measures shall be installed at the time of clearing and grading operations.
• Native vegetation is to be retained if possible, but if it must be removed, shall be done in such a way as to minimize erosive effects.
• Per the City of Santee Municipal Code Chapter 15, slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1 and fills shall be no steeper than 2:1.
• Earth or paved interceptors and diversions shall be installed at the top of cut or fill slopes where there is a potential for surface runoff.
• Temporary mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed critical areas during construction or other land disturbance.
62 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project? a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
The CFMP PEIR determined that program-level impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be less than significant. An Air Quality/GHG Emissions Technical Report (HELIX 2018b) was prepared for the project to quantify emissions based on more specific project-level information. The report is attached as Appendix B to this IS/MND; analysis and conclusions from the report are provided in the discussion below. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant. California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines GHGs to include the following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As individual GHGs have varying heat-trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units for comparison. The CO2e is a consistent methodology for comparing GHG emissions because it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. The most common GHGs related to the project are CO2 (CO2e = 1), CH4 (CO2e = 21), and N2O (CO2e = 310).
The County of San Diego and the City of Santee recommends the use of a screening-level emission threshold of 900 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year based on the January 2008 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) report “CEQA & Climate Change.” The screening threshold was developed by analyzing the capture of 90 percent or more of future discretionary development for residential and commercial projects. The proposed project is not, however, a residential or commercial land use project and would be more accurately related to an industrial-type use; therefore, the CAPCOA screening level threshold is not directly applicable. CAPCOA does not include a screening level threshold for industrial or infrastructure facilities. Thus, the significance of GHG emissions is assessed using guidance established by the SCAQMD, which has a significance threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for industrial uses.
Construction
Project construction would generate GHG emissions associated with construction equipment exhaust and from construction worker vehicle trips to and from the project site. The primary GHG emissions
63 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
would be CO2 from gasoline and diesel combustion, with more limited vehicle tailpipe emissions of N2O and CH4. Total GHG emissions during project construction are presented in Table 9, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions. As shown in Table 9, the project would result in GHG emissions from construction of 13,107 MT CO2e. Amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD guidance, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 437 MT CO2e emissions per year.
Table 9 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Emissions Year (MT CO2e) 2021 771 2022 4,071 2023 4,222 2024 3,541 2025 502 TOTAL 13,1071 Amortized Construction Emissions2 437 Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A of Appendix B to this IS/MND) 1 The total presented is the sum of the unrounded values. 2 Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years. Operation
Operational sources of emissions from the project include: (1) energy use (electricity and natural gas); (2) vehicle use; (3) solid waste generation; and (4) stationary sources (emergency generators). The AWTP would produce up to 11.5 mgd of potable water, which would reduce reliance on imported water, thereby reducing GHG emissions associated with water consumption within the District. If a biosolids cogeneration facility is constructed, savings of 9,600 megawatt-hours per year would be achieved through the biosolids cogeneration facility (Kennedy/Jenks 2018). The scenario without the cogeneration savings was modeled in addition to the scenario with cogeneration. At the SHERF, some portion of the biogas would be sent to the boilers for heating, while the remainder of the biogas would be flared. It is estimated that 6 million British Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/hr) of biogas would be generated, with 2.77 MMBTU/hr going to the boilers, and 3.23 MMBTU/hr to be flared (Kennedy/Jenks 2018b). Detailed assumptions for operational emissions are included in Appendix B.
Table 10, Total Estimated Operational GHG Emissions, includes the total annual emissions for the project. The emissions include the amortized annual construction emissions anticipated for the project. As shown in the table, there would be a net reduction of 15,295 MT CO2e in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions for water sources. This is due to the substantial GHG emissions reduction that would result from the lower GHG emissions associated with locally produced potable water when compared to imported potable water.
As shown in Table 10, the project would result in annual GHG emissions of 7,537 MT CO2e without cogeneration and 4,389 MT CO2e with cogeneration. These values are less than the SCAQMD’s 10,000 MT CO2e per year significance threshold. Therefore, the increase in GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant.
64 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Table 10 TOTAL ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emissions Emission Sources (MT CO2e) Without Cogeneration Energy Sources 18,031 Vehicular (Mobile) Sources 27 Stationary Sources 2,808 Solid Waste Sources 1,529 Water Sources (15,295) Operational Subtotal – without cogeneration 7,100 Construction (amortized over 30 years) 437 TOTAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS – without cogeneration 7,537 With Cogeneration Energy Sources 14,883 Vehicular (Mobile) Sources 27 Stationary Sources 2,808 Solid Waste Sources 1,529 Water Sources (15,295) Operational Subtotal – with cogeneration 3,952 Construction (amortized over 30 years) 437 TOTAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS – with cogeneration 4,389 Source: CalEEMod (output data is provided in Appendix A of Appendix B to this IS/MND) Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding. b) Would the project 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 impact. As discussed in the PEIR, the CFMP’s main purpose is to update the 2001 IFP based on analysis of the District’s potable water, recycled water, and wastewater system demands. Existing and future (through 2040) demands and flows in the updated CFMP are based on current land uses, approved land uses, and forecasted growth-based land uses. Through implementation of improvements, repairs, and replacements needed to bring existing facilities up to current design, safety, and regulatory standards, the CFMP addressed system deficiencies to meet future water demand and flow conditions for year 2020 and 2040. By providing a reliable source of potable water, the CFMP is consistent with County of San Diego General Plan policies COS-4 and COS-5, as well as the County’s Climate Action Plan.
The CFMP will implement a potable reuse program to provide East San Diego County with a local, sustainable, reliable, and drought-proof drinking water supply. It is the District’s goal that the ECAWP Project ultimately produce up to 30 percent of East San Diego County’s potable water supply, which would reduce reliance on imported water and provide a drought resistant and locally controlled water supply to rate payers within the District. By providing a local, reliable source of potable water, the proposed project would reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use embedded in imported water and help the local municipalities in the District’s service area increase water, wastewater, and energy independence consistent with the goals set forth by the City of Santee Sustainability Project, and the statewide goals associated with Assembly Bill 32 or Senate Bill 32.
65 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Therefore, the proposed ECAWP Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and related impacts would be less than significant.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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 compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
66 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Discussion a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Numerous federal, state, and local regulations require strict adherence to specific guidelines regarding the use, transportation, disposal and accidental release of hazardous materials. These include the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Health and Safety Code, California Code or Regulations Title 22, SB 81 and 1916 (fire protection), and San Diego County regulations (Department of Environmental Health/Hazardous Materials and Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan).
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would have the potential to generate small amounts of hazardous materials and wastes. 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. 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. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous wastes generated from construction activities would be less than significant.
Following construction, the proposed facilities would require the occasional transport and use of hazardous materials as part of routine operation and maintenance. Typical hazardous materials include fuels, lubricants, oils, paints, solvents, and hazardous materials used for water treatment and disinfection, such as chlorine. Specific materials that are expected to be used at facilities proposed by the project are listed in Appendix E of this IS/MND. Project compliance with applicable regulations would be implemented to reduce foreseeable risks of an accident that could create a hazard to the public or environment. However, as the project is a wastewater project, accidental conditions, such as sewer pipe rupture or lift station failure, could result in potential impacts related to spills and the exposure of the public and environment to health hazards, which would result in potentially significant impacts. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Haz-1. This measure would reduce impacts to less than significant by requiring sewage pump safety features, such as on-site emergency backup power, sufficient sewage detainment capacity, and a contingency plan for accidental leaks or spills, thereby minimizing potential public exposure to sewage spills. b) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. The PEIR determined that compliance with applicable regulations, described in Section VIII.a, would minimize foreseeable risks of an accident that could create a hazard to the public or environment. For example, compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations for the handling of hazardous materials and spill cleanup procedures would prevent potentially significant impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would involve the continued storage and use of several hazardous substances that are currently being
67 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 shipped to and stored at the Ray Stoyer WRF under Hazardous Waste EPA No. CAL 000258422 permit. All chemical wastes generated at the Ray Stoyer WRF are disposed of every six months. The frequency of chemical deliveries to the Ray Stoyer WRF would be expected to increase to approximately 20 trips per week (refer to Appendix A). Transportation of these hazardous materials would comply with all Department of Transportation, Caltrans, USEPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Highway Patrol, and California State Fire Marshal regulations, and releases of hazardous materials into the environment during transport are not anticipated to occur. However, accidental conditions such as lift station or force main failure could result in sewage spills and the exposure of the public and environment to health hazards, which could result in potentially significant impacts. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Haz-1. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than significant impact. There are seven schools located within 0.25 mile of the AWP Pipeline (refer to Chapter 2). Two schools are located in the vicinity of the Ray Stoyer WRF; however, both schools are over 1.5 miles away. The PEIR determined that compliance with applicable regulations would minimize foreseeable risks of an accident during construction that could create a hazard to the public or environment. Following construction, operation of the proposed project would also comply with all applicable regulations and would not result in the release of hazardous materials to an existing or proposed school. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled 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 incorporated. A records search was conducted in May 2018 by HELIX of federal, state, and local databases of sites within 50 feet of the proposed project that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials, or sites for which a hazardous materials release or incident has occurred. Specifically, this included the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor site and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker site. The EnviroStor database is a geographic information system that lists Federal Superfund Sites; State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School Cleanup sites. The GeoTracker database is a data management system for tracking potential impacts to groundwater and activities that involve groundwater cleanup, such as remediation for leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). The results of the identified database searches are listed in Table 11, Hazardous Materials Sites within 50 Feet of the Project Site, and are summarized below.
Cleanup activities for two listed LUST cleanup sites and two other cleanup program sites have been completed, and the cases are listed as closed. One land disposal site was identified within 50 feet of the proposed AWP Pipeline alignment near the intersection of Riverside Drive and Vista Camino, north of the Willowbrook Golf Course. The Lakeside Land Company has a RWQCB waste discharge permit for a reclamation project at this site. According to monitoring reports, reclamation has been completed but storm water BMPs are still being implemented at the site. A Circle K/Exxon Mobil gas station located at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Mast Boulevard is listed as an open LUST cleanup site for a leak that was identified in 1997. Cleanup activities included excavation and removal of contaminated soils as well as extraction and testing using 18 monitoring wells. An addendum to the Correction Action Plan was submitted in June 2018 which recommended natural attenuation of the remaining petroleum
68 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 hydrocarbons in the soil, and the County has issued their final concurrence with this approach (SWRCB 2018). The District’s operations yard on Carlton Oaks Drive is listed as a Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) case for the removal of contaminated soils (SWRCB 2018). Geotechnical testing was performed as part of the District’s Operations and Maintenance Yard Improvement Project (completed in March 2016), and the area where the current canopy parking structure is installed was found to have contaminated soils. This area corresponds to a location where a suspected former sludge pit resided in the 1960s. The sludge pit was part of the District’s wastewater treatment facilities at the time and was decommissioned in the 1970s when a new treatment facility was constructed. The District contacted the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) for assistance through the VAP to develop the most appropriate and reasonable strategy in dealing with the contaminated soils.
Excavation for the EMG Force Main and Residuals Bypass System pipelines within the District’s operations yard and installation of portions of the AWP Pipeline in Mast Boulevard would likely occur within the area of contaminated soils, and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Haz-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring a DEH-approved Community Health & Safety and Soil Management Plans for the safe handling of contaminated soils.
Table 11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE
Site ID Name Address Site Type Status T10000005796 Padre Dam Municipal Water 9120 Carlton Oaks Cleanup Program Open- Site District Operations Yard Drive, Santee Site Assessment L10006905197 Lakeside Land Company 1161 Riverside Drive Land Disposal Site Open – Verification Monitoring TO607302280 Mobil 18-314 9750 Magnolia LUST Cleanup Site Open- Site Avenue, Santee Assessment T0607301322 One Stop Auto (Former 9605 Carlton Hills LUST Cleanup Site Completed – Tony’s Auto Tech) Boulevard, Santee Case Closed 4/3/2012 T0607301982 Tony’s Auto Tech 9605 Carlton Hills LUST Cleanup Site Completed – Boulevard, Santee Case Closed 10/23/2006 T0607302347 Tony’s Auto Tech 9605 Carlton Hills Cleanup Program Completed – Boulevard, Santee Site Case Closed 3/30/1988 T0608176918 Woodward Sand Company 9891 Riverford Road Cleanup Program Completed – Site Case Closed 9/12/2012 Sources: GeoTracker 2018 and DTSC 2018 LUST = leaking underground storage tank
69 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 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. The proposed project would not be located within the Airport Influence Area for the Gillespie Field Airport, or within two miles of any other public 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 proposed project. No impact would occur. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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 San Diego County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan evaluates risks associated with coastal storms, erosion, and tsunami, dam failure, earthquakes, floods, rain-induced landslides, liquefaction, structure/wildfire fires and manmade hazards and provides goals, objectives and actions to reduce impacts from these hazards. The PEIR determined that excavation and trenching construction activities associated with CFMP projects that are within roadway rights-of-way may result in temporary, construction-related interferences with emergency plans and procedures as a result of lane and road closures or detours.
Components of the proposed project would be located within roadways and may require road closures or detours during construction. However, with implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1, the Traffic Management Plan, as described in Section XVI, construction of the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant impact associated with impairment or interference with emergency response or evacuation plans. h) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. The Ray Stoyer WRF site, portions of the proposed AWP Pipeline alignment, and the proposed site for the dechlorination station and inlet to Lake Jennings are located in High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (refer to Figure 4.8-1 of the CFMP PEIR). Therefore, the proposed project would have a potentially significant risk associated with wildfires. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Haz-3. This measure would reduce impacts to less than significant through avoidance of fire-prone areas and/or incorporation of brush fire prevention and management practices during construction.
Mitigation
The following PEIR measures would mitigate the potentially significant impacts identified in this section to less than significant levels.
70 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
CFMP Haz-1 Sewage Pump Station Safety Features. Sewage pump stations shall incorporate standard safety features, including an emergency generator on the site in case of electrical failure, and sufficient sewage detainment capacity in the event of generator and/or pump mechanism failure to allow time for repair and/or emergency conveyance of the sewage. Portable emergency generators may be used for pump stations that cannot be equipped with an on-site generator. Each sewage pump station and treatment facility would implement a Sewer System Management Plan that includes contingency measures in the event of emergency leaks or spills.
CFMP Haz-3 Fire Safety Plan. To minimize the risk of losses resulting from wildfire, the following measures shall be implemented during project construction for the project:
• Construction within areas of dense foliage during dry conditions will be avoided, when feasible.
In cases where avoidance is not feasible, brush fire prevention and management practices will be incorporated. Specifics of the brush management program will be incorporated into project construction documents.
ECAWP Haz-1 Health and Safety Plan for Handling of Contaminated Soils. Prior to any ground- disturbing activity related to pipeline installation within the District’s Operations Yard or within 50 feet of a documented hazardous materials site in Mast Boulevard, the contractor shall develop a Community Health & Safety Plan and Soil Management Plan for the safe handling of contaminated soils, which shall be reviewed and approved by the San Diego County DEH. Typical remedial measures for contaminated soils may include efforts such as removal and proper disposal of contaminated materials, or on- site treatment and reuse, if applicable. The construction contract will require the general contractor or the subcontractor performing excavation work to have a California-issued Hazardous Substance Removal “HAZ” Certification.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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)?
71 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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 which 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 which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The following discussion describes potential water quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the project.
Construction
Potential water quality impacts related to project construction include erosion/ sedimentation, the use and storage of construction-related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, etc.), generation of debris from demolition activities, and disposal of extracted groundwater (i.e., construction-related dewatering, if required), as described below.
72 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Erosion/Sedimentation
Construction of the project could result in erosion/sedimentation from activities such as clearing and grading, excavation, and stockpiling of construction-related soils and materials. Sediment that is washed off site into surface waters can smother aquatic organisms, alter the substrate and habitat, and alter the drainage course. Additionally, increased turbidity associated with erosion and sedimentation can degrade water quality by transporting pollutants that adhere to sediment particles, such as hydrocarbons. These potential impacts would be addressed through conformance with District requirements, as well as requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit.
The District requires contractors to comply with specific storm water pollution prevention requirements for all projects involving earthwork, trenching, clearing, and grubbing operations. These requirements involve implementation of appropriate dry-season and rainy-season BMPs; routine evaluation, maintenance, and documentation of the effectiveness of implemented BMPs; and development of a “weather triggered” action plan and standby materials to deploy additional BMPs within 48 hours of a predicted storm event.
Additionally, for projects with soil disturbances of one acre or more, implementation of one or more authorized SWPPPs for proposed project construction would be required. Minimum BMPs would be determined during the NPDES/SWPPP process based on regulatory criteria and site characteristics (soils, slopes, etc.), and they would likely include standard industry measures and guidelines from the NPDES Construction General Permit. Based on the implementation of the required BMPs summarized in Section 4.9.3.1 of the PEIR and/or other appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs as part of (and in conformance with) the project SWPPP and related regulatory requirements, associated potential erosion/sedimentation impacts from project development would be less than significant.
Construction-related Hazardous Materials
Project construction would involve the on-site use and/or storage of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, concrete, paint, and portable septic system wastes. The accidental discharge of such materials during project construction could potentially result in significant impacts if such materials reach downstream receiving waters, particularly materials such as petroleum compounds that can be toxic to aquatic species in low concentrations. The District’s minimum requirements for storm water pollution prevention and any required SWPPPs under NPDES guidelines would prescribe detailed measures to avoid or mitigate potential impacts related to the use and potential discharge of construction-related hazardous materials. While specific BMPs would be determined on a project- specific basis, they would likely include standard measures listed in the Construction General Permit. Based on the implementation of these and/or other appropriate BMPs as part of (and in conformance with) the project SWPPPs and related regulatory requirements, potential impacts from construction- related hazardous materials under the proposed CFMP, including the proposed project, would be less than significant.
Disposal of Extracted Groundwater (Construction Related Dewatering)
While no groundwater extraction is proposed, construction dewatering could potentially be required during construction operations (e.g., excavation within locally perched groundwater aquifers). Disposal of groundwater extracted during construction activities into local drainages and/or storm drain facilities could potentially generate significant water quality impacts through erosion/sedimentation, or the
73 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 possible occurrence of pollutants in local aquifers (e.g., total dissolved solids). Project construction would require conformance with NPDES Groundwater Permit criteria prior to disposal of construction- related groundwater into local drainages and/or storm drain facilities. While specific BMPs to address potential water quality concerns from disposal of construction dewatering into local drainages and/or storm drain facilities would be determined based on site-specific parameters, they would likely include erosion/sedimentation controls (as outlined above), as well as the following types of standard measures from the Groundwater Permit: (1) submittal of appropriate application materials and fees; (2) implementation of pertinent (depending on site-specific conditions) monitoring/testing, disposal alternative, and treatment programs; (3) provision of applicable notification to the associated local agency prior to discharging to a municipal storm drain system; (4) conformance with appropriate effluent standards (as outlined in the permit); and (5) submittal of applicable documentation (e.g., monitoring reports). Extracted groundwater could also be discharged to the sanitary sewer system or to land areas for dust control or soil compaction purposes, which would not result in discharges entering local drainages. Based on the implementation of these and/or other appropriate BMPs as part of (and in conformance with) the NPDES Groundwater Permit, and additional options for extracted groundwater disposal that would prevent discharges from entering waterways, potential impacts from construction-related dewatering under the proposed project would be less than significant.
Groundwater Quality
The project does not include structures or activities that could directly affect groundwater quality, such as underground fuel tanks or septic systems. Potential impacts to groundwater quality related to the proposed project would be limited to percolation of surface water. As described above, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with the District’s minimum storm water pollution prevention requirements as well as all applicable construction storm water permits, thereby reducing impacts to groundwater quality related to construction activities to a less than significant level.
Demolition-related Debris Generation
Demolition of existing facilities would be necessary for the proposed IPS improvements, Ray Stoyer WRF expansion, SHERF construction, replacement of the El Monte Pumphouse with the dechlorination station, and demolition of the existing above-ground pipelines running upslope from the El Monte Pump Station. Such activities could generate variable amounts of construction debris, potentially including concrete, asphalt, glass, metal, drywall, paint, insulation, fabric, and wood. The introduction of demolition-related particulates or other pollutants into local drainages or storm drain systems could potentially result in significant downstream water quality impacts. Project construction would be subject to a number of regulatory controls related to demolition, including NPDES/SWPPP requirements as previously described. While specific BMPs would be determined on a project-specific basis during the regulatory process, they would likely include the types of standard measures derived from the Construction General Permit. Based on the implementation of these and/or other appropriate BMPs as part of (and in conformance with) the District’s minimum requirements, project-specific SWPPPs and related regulatory requirements, potential impacts from construction-related debris generation under the proposed project would be less than significant.
Operation/Maintenance Activities
The proposed AWTP Facility is expected to produce 0.62 mgd of brine (concentrate from advanced water treatment membrane processes) which will be conveyed to the Metro system. This added brine
74 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 flow to the Metro system, however, will not require added capacity in the system, since with the implementation of the ECAWP Program the sewer discharges to the Metro system will be significantly less than the current discharges.
The mass of salts contained in the 0.62 mgd of brine would comingle with about 140 mgd of other wastewaters in the north Metro system and would then ultimately be discharged through Metro’s ocean outfall at Point Loma. The mass of salts in the brine flow would be the same as the mass of salt in the wastewater that would have been discharged through the ocean outfall in the absence of the AWTP processes and reuse. Anticipated brine discharges from the proposed project would not exceed the PLWWTP waste discharge requirements and related impacts would be less than significant.
The District is also actively working and coordinating with the City of San Diego on a long-term residuals management strategy. It is anticipated that following the development and adoption of a Comprehensive Residuals Management Plan, the City and the District would enter into an agreement to implement the Plan to avoid and/or minimize potential effects to the Metro System facilities.
The Ray Stoyer WRF has a current WDR and Industrial Permit, as described in CFMP PEIR Section 4.9. Associated requirements are designed to protect water quality from discharges related to plant operation and maintenance activities. The expansion of facilities at the Ray Stoyer WRF (including the proposed SHERF and AWTP facility) may require amendments and/or updates to existing permits and related conformance efforts. Compliance with applicable permits/conditions would reduce impacts to water quality from operation of the proposed improvements planned for the existing Ray Stoyer WRF site to less than significant levels.
Long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed facilities that would not be covered by the WDR and Industrial permit, such as the aeration blower building and generator, could generate pollutants in association with activities such as on-site fuel and lubricant storage, vehicular/employee access for maintenance and related activities, and the implementation and maintenance of landscaped areas. While such potential pollutant generation would typically be addressed through standard design measures and BMPs, specific design details of related facilities have not been identified; and associated effects to long-term water quality cannot be determined. As a result, potential impacts are unknown and could result in significant long-term water quality impacts. Additionally, as discussed in the IS/MND for the Ray Stoyer WRF Phase I Expansion Project (HELIX 2015a), project-related increases in impervious surfaces could result in increased storm water runoff that could potentially carry pollutants into nearby waterways. Storm water from the Ray Stoyer WRF drains through the District’s holding ponds and the Santee Lakes towards Sycamore Creek. Since the proposed project would involve filling in two holding ponds (Ponds A and B) and building new facilities that would expand impervious surface areas, impacts would be potentially significant. However, PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Hyd-1 would be required to be implemented during final design of the Ray Stoyer WRF improvements, SHERF, and AWTP Facility, which would include an on-site storm water collection system. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Hyd-1 would reduce potential impacts related to water quality to a less-than-significant level.
75 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 b) Would the project 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 impact. The proposed project does not entail any long-term withdrawal or other use of groundwater, with no associated impacts to local groundwater supplies, aquifer volumes, or water tables. In the unlikely event that shallow groundwater is encountered during project construction, temporary dewatering efforts would be implemented in conformance with applicable NPDES requirements. Based on the minor and temporary nature of such potential dewatering activities, as well as the fact that disposal of any extracted groundwater would likely occur within the areal extent of the same basin from which the groundwater was extracted (with associated potential for infiltration/recharge), no associated significant impacts related to drawdown or depletion of local groundwater resources are anticipated.
While project implementation would include the installation of some new impervious surfaces, such as structures and pavement, associated potential impacts to existing on-site recharge capacity would be less than significant based on the anticipated minor extent of such areas. c) Would the project 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) Would the project 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) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. The following discussion addresses IX (c) through (e) and describes potential impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns and increases in runoff resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project.
Drainage Alteration
Runoff Generation
The proposed project is generally not expected to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff within or from proposed project sites. This conclusion is based on the nature of proposed facilities (e.g., improvements to existing facilities, underground pipelines), and the fact that proposed new above-ground project components would generally not result in substantial areas of new impervious surfaces, such as pavement and large structures. Accordingly, associated increases in runoff rates and amounts would be minor, and related potential impacts associated with erosion and flooding are expected to be less than significant. While overall increases in runoff rates and amounts are not anticipated to be substantial, associated impacts are unknown and could potentially result in significant impacts related to runoff generation, drainage system capacity (and related localized flooding), and
76 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 hydromodification. PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Hyd-2 would address impacts associated with proposed facilities that would increase impervious surfaces at the Ray Stoyer WRF site. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Hyd-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Flooding from Facility Failure
The failure of the proposed project components, such as improvements at the EMG Pump Station and pipelines, could occur as a result of structural damage caused by a natural event, such as earthquakes or flooding, or equipment failure from age or material defect. Facility failure could result in flooding caused by the release of impounded water. The failure could be hazardous, as it would occur quickly and without warning. Areas directly surrounding the facility would be at the greatest risk. Flooding from facility failure could discharge raw sewage, inundate and cause water damage to structures, bury structures, knock structures off their foundations, or destroy structures by the impact of high velocity water and debris. Impacts resulting from flooding could include the loss of life and/or property; health and safety hazards; disruption of commerce, water, power, and telecommunications services; loss of agricultural lands; and infrastructure damage.
District facilities, including the proposed project, would be monitored by SCADA, which is a system for remote monitoring and control that provides real-time information on how facilities are functioning and alerts operators of potential facility failures. All projects would comply with the regulations outlined in Section 4.6 of the PEIR, as applicable, to minimize reasonably foreseeable risk from seismic events. The District routinely performs inspection and maintenance on all facilities, and the project would be incorporated into the maintenance schedules. Additionally, the District maintains a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) in compliance with statewide general waste discharge requirements for sanitary sewer systems. The SSMP aims to prevent facility failures from occurring and prescribes overflow response programs to respond to potential facility failures. The SSMP also includes plans for system evaluation; monitoring; and control of fats, oils, and grease that can damage the sewer system. These measures would reduce the risks associated with project failure to less than significant. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less than significant impact. Potential water quality impacts related to project construction include erosion/sedimentation, the use and storage of construction-related hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, etc.), generation of debris from demolition activities, and disposal of extracted groundwater (if required). As discussed in Section IX.a, compliance with applicable state and local regulations would prevent potentially significant impacts to water quality during construction and operation. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant. g) Would the project 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 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.
77 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. The project does not propose above-ground structures within 100-year flood hazard areas (FEMA 2018). The EMG force main would cross the San Diego River north of the EMG Pump Station, and the AWP Pipeline would cross the San Diego River west of Lakeside Avenue; however, once installed, the pipelines would be underground and would not impede flows. Additionally, construction and operation of the project would be required to comply with existing regulations, such as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and those listed in Section IX.a, that would reduce the likelihood of alterations in drainage to result in flooding impacts. Through compliance with existing local and state regulations, including implementation of post-construction BMPs, the proposed project would not substantially impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. i) Would the project 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?
Less than significant impact. The dam inundation areas of concern identified in the PEIR included areas surrounding the San Diego River corridor (refer to CFMP PEIR Section 4.9). There are three reservoirs upstream of the project area that could cause flooding in the event of a dam failure: El Capitan, San Vicente, and Lake Jennings. The dams on these reservoirs have existing inundation area maps and emergency plans for areas within inundation areas. The proposed sites for above-ground segments of the AWP Pipeline, dechlorination station, Lake Jennings inlet, aeration blower building and generator, EMG Pump Station improvements, Residuals Bypass System lift station, Ray Stoyer WRF expansion, AWTP facility, and SHERF are not located within a mapped dam inundation area (Figure 1 of County 2007, Helix Water District 2018). Additionally, the project does not propose structures that would be permanently occupied. Based on the lack of above-ground occupied structures proposed in the project within the dam inundation area, impacts related to significant losses resulting from dam failure would be less than significant. j) Would the project expose people or structures inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less than significant impact. A tsunami is a very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. The CFMP area is located approximately 15 miles inland and at elevations of 320 feet or more AMSL. Based on these conditions, as well as the fact that identified tsunami-related inundation zones in San Diego County are limited mainly to coastal areas, no potential tsunami-related impacts would occur from inundation of the proposed project.
Debris flows, also known as mudflows, are shallow water-saturated landslides that travel rapidly down slopes carrying rocks, brush, and other debris. The CFMP 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 project does not propose housing or buildings for human occupancy; therefore, loss of life would not occur in the event of a mudflow and no impacts would occur.
Seiches are defined as wave-like oscillatory movements in enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water such as lakes or reservoirs and are most typically associated with seismic activity. Seiches can result in flooding damage and related effects (e.g., erosion) in surrounding areas from spilling or sloshing water, as well as increasing pressure on containment structures. The potential for seiche-related hazards in the CFMP area is generally considered low, although proposed projects located along the San Diego River
78 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 corridor could potentially be subject to seiche hazards associated with larger upstream water bodies including San Vicente/El Capitan reservoirs and Lake Jennings.
The proposed aeration blower building and generator near Lake Jennings could potentially be subject to associated effects such as scour-related damage during seiche events. Such potential impacts are generally expected to be minor, however, based on the low probability of seiche events. Impacts related to seiches would be less than significant.
Mitigation
The following PEIR mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level.
CFMP Hyd-1 Conduct Site-Specific Water Quality Investigation. A site-specific water quality investigation will be completed prior to approval of final project design. All applicable results and recommendations from this investigation will be incorporated into the final project design documents to address identified potential long-term water quality issues related to conditions such as: anticipated and potential pollutants to be used, stored or generated on-site; the location and nature (e.g., impaired status) of on-site and downstream receiving waters; and project design features to avoid/address potential pollutant discharges. The final project design documents will also encompass standard design practices from sources including NPDES criteria and other applicable regulatory standards (with all related requirements to be included in engineering/design drawings and construction contract specifications). A summary of the types of BMPs typically associated with identified potential water quality concerns, pursuant to applicable regulatory and industry standards (as noted), is provided below. The BMPs identified/recommended as part of the described site-specific water quality investigation will take priority over the more general types of standard regulatory/industry measures listed below:
• Low Impact Development (LID)/Site Design BMPs: LID/site design BMPs are intended to avoid, minimize, and/or control post-development runoff, erosion potential, and pollutant generation to the maximum extent practicable by mimicking the natural hydrologic regime. The LID process employs design practices and techniques to effectively capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff close to its source through efforts such as: (1) minimizing developed/ disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible; (2) utilizing natural and/or unlined drainage features in on-site storm water systems; (3) disconnecting impervious surfaces to slow concentration times, and directing flows from impervious surfaces into landscaped or vegetated areas; and (4) using pervious surfaces in developed areas to the maximum extent feasible.
• Source Control BMPs: Source control BMPs are intended to avoid or minimize the introduction of pollutants into storm drains and natural drainages by reducing on- site pollutant generation and off-site pollutant transport through measures such as: (1) installing “no dumping” stencils/tiles and/or signs with prohibitive language at applicable locations such as drainages and storm drain inlets to discourage illegal dumping; (2) designing trash storage areas to reduce litter/pollutant discharge
79 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
through methods such as paving with impervious surfaces, installing screens or walls to prevent trash dispersal, and providing attached lids and/or roofs for trash containers; (3) designing site landscaping to maximize the retention of native vegetation and use of appropriate native, pest-resistant, and/or drought-tolerant varieties to reduce irrigation and pesticide application requirements; and (4) providing secondary containment (e.g., enclosed structures, walls, or berms) for applicable areas such as trash or hazardous material use/storage.
• Pollutant Control BMPs: Pollutant control BMPs are designed to remove pollutants from runoff to the maximum extent practicable through means such as filtering, treatment, or infiltration. Pollutant control BMPs are required to address applicable pollutants, and may include efforts such as: (1) providing water quality treatment and related facilities such as sediment basins, vegetated swales, infiltration basins, filtration devices, and velocity dissipators to treat appropriate runoff flows and reduce volumes prior to off-site discharge (per applicable regulatory requirements); (2) creating a construction spill contingency plan in accordance with DEH regulations and retaining a copy of the plan on- site by the construction manager; and (3) conducting regular inspection, maintenance, and as-needed repairs of pertinent facilities and structures.
CFMP Hyd-2 Conduct Site-Specific Hydrologic Investigation. A site-specific investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the site-specific hydrological conditions, related potential impacts, and requirements. All applicable results and recommendations from this investigation shall be incorporated into the associated final design documents to address identified potential hydrologic concerns, including, but not necessarily limited to: drainage alteration, runoff rates/amounts, storm water management and hydromodification, and flood hazards. The final project design documents shall also encompass applicable standard design and construction practices from sources including NPDES (with related requirements to be included in applicable engineering/design drawings and/or construction contract specifications). A summary of the types of remedial measures typically associated with identified potential hydrologic concerns, pursuant to applicable regulatory and industry standards (as noted), is provided below. The remedial measures identified/recommended as part of the described site-specific hydrologic investigation will take priority over the more general types of standard regulatory/industry measures listed below.
• Drainage Alteration: (1) locate applicable facilities outside of surface drainage courses and drainage channels; (2) re-route surface drainage around applicable facilities, with such re-routing to be limited to the smallest area feasible and re-routed drainage to be directed back to the original drainage course at the closest feasible location (i.e., the closest location to the point of diversion); and (3) use drainage structures to convey flows within/through development areas and maintain existing drainage patterns, where appropriate and feasible.
• Runoff Rates/Amounts, Storm Water Management and Hydromodification: (1) minimize the installation of new impervious surfaces (e.g., by surfacing with pervious pavement, gravel or decomposed granite); (2) use flow regulation facilities (e.g., detention/retention basins) and velocity control structures (e.g., riprap
80 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
dissipation aprons at drainage outlets), to maintain pre-development runoff rates and amounts for design storm events, if applicable; and (3) utilize additional and/or enlarged drainage facilities to ensure adequate on- and off-site storm drain system capacity, if applicable.
• Flood Hazards: (1) locate proposed facilities outside of mapped 100-year floodplain boundaries wherever feasible; (2) based on technical analyses such as Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) studies, restrict facility locations to avoid adverse impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood waters; (3) based on HEC-RAS studies, use measures such as raised fill pads to elevate proposed structures above calculated flood levels, and/or utilize protection/ containment structures (e.g., berms, barriers or water-tight doors) to avoid flood damage; and (4) if Project-related activities/facilities result in applicable proposed changes to mapped FEMA floodplains, obtain an approved Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and/or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA, as applicable.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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 community conservation plan?
Discussion a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
No impact. The proposed project would not result in a permanent obstruction to a roadway or other access route, and construction of the project would not create a physical barrier (such as a highway), that would result in the physical division of an established community. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established neighborhood and no impact would occur.
81 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 b) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. The Ray Stoyer WRF is zoned as “Park/Open Space” under the City of Santee Zoning Ordinance, and the land use is designated as “Public” in the City of Santee General Plan. A substantial portion of the AWP pipeline and force main would be located within public street rights-of-way. Other portions of the project, such as the EMG Pump Station and the El Monte Pump Station, are institutional land uses. The portion of the AWP pipeline east of the El Monte Pump Station that would traverse the hillside to Lake Jennings is within an open space/recreational land use.
When a local agency is directly and immediately engaged in “the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water,” the agency has an absolute exemption from complying with local building and zoning ordinances for the location or construction of facilities (Government Code, § 53091, subds. (d), (e)). The project involves facilities directly and immediately engaged in the production, generation, treatment, and transmission of water. Therefore, the project is exempt from the cities of Santee and San Diego and the County of San Diego zoning ordinances.
As evaluated in Sections IV, XII, and XVII, the proposed project could result in potential impacts to noise and traffic.
Construction and operation activities would have the potential to generate noise levels that exceed the noise limits of local jurisdictions. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures CFMP Noi-1 through CFMP Noi-5 and project-level mitigation measures ECAWP Noi-1 through ECAWP Noi-7, as described in Section XII, below, would ensure that construction/operation noise levels do not exceed the limits established by the cities of Santee and San Diego and the County of San Diego. If noise levels fail to comply with local ordinances, the District shall implement sound control methods that reduce the noise levels to limits that minimize disturbances to surrounding noise-sensitive land uses. Implementation of these measures would ensure consistency with local policies related to noise.
Segments of the AWP Pipeline would be installed within public rights-of-way in existing roads. Construction would result in potential incompatibilities with surrounding land uses if it requires a roadway closure. A Traffic Management Plan would be implemented during construction of the project, as required by mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1. Implementation of this measure would ensure consistency with local policies related to traffic.
The proposed project would not result in changes to land use and would not result in other land use conflicts. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As evaluated above in Section IV, the proposed project could result in potential impacts to biological resources. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1B, CFMP Bio-1F, CFMP Bio-1H, CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Bio-1J, CFMP Bio-1K, CFMP Bio-2A, CFMP Bio-3B, CFMP Bio-3C, and project-level mitigation measures ECAWP Bio-1 through ECAWP Bio-7 would reduce or avoid construction- and operation-related impacts for projects that have the
82 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 potential to affect biologically sensitive habitat, which would be consistent with the goals of the local and regional habitat conservation plans.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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?
Discussion 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?
Less than significant impact. The following discussion addresses XI (a) and (b). According to the PEIR, CFMP projects, including the proposed project, are located in areas designated as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-) 3 and MRZ-2 (see CFMP PEIR Section 5.1.2), which indicate that mineral resources are potentially present. There are known sand and gravel deposits along the San Diego River within the WSA, and three active quarries are located near the proposed project in Lakeside, as depicted in Figure 3 of the County of San Diego Mineral Resources Guidelines (County 2008). However, the majority of the proposed project components would be constructed within roadway rights-of-way, on disturbed sites, or at existing facilities. Due to the small development footprints associated with the proposed project, implementation of the project would not result in a significant loss of availability of mineral resources. Additionally, the proposed project consists of public utilities infrastructure that would not be considered incompatible land uses that would preclude areas surrounding the projects from being used for mineral extraction. Impacts related to mineral resources would be less than significant, and no further analysis is required.
83 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
XII. NOISE
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: 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?
Discussion
A portion of the project’s Ray Stoyer WRF expansion was analyzed under the IS/MND for the Ray Stoyer WRF – Phase 1 Expansion project. This analysis included a project-specific Acoustical Analysis Report (HELIX 2015b). Facilities analyzed included the expansion of the existing IPS, expansion of the Ray Stoyer WRF from 2.0- to 6.0-mgd annual average capacity, and construction of up to a 2.2-mgd annual average capacity AWTP Facility. Potentially significant impacts were identified from construction and operational noise. Project-specific mitigation measures were identified to reduce operational noise impacts to less than significant.
The remainder of the project was analyzed under the CFMP PEIR. The PEIR also included a programmatic-level analysis for the additional expansion of the Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP facilities. The PEIR included five mitigation measures, CFMP Noi-1 through CFMP Noi-5, to reduce noise and vibration impacts to less than significant levels. In accordance with mitigation measure CFMP Noi-2, a, a project- level Acoustical Analysis Report (AAR; HELIX 2018a) was prepared for the proposed project, which is attached to this IS/MND as Appendix F. Analysis and conclusions from the AAR are provided in the discussion below.
84 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound (and therefore noise) consists of energy waves that people receive and interpret. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep.
Sound intensity or acoustic energy is measured in decibels (dBs) that are A weighted (indicated by dBA) to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. Unlike linear units (inches or pounds), decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve.
Since decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted by ordinary arithmetic means. Typically, a doubling of sound volume would increase a noise level by 3 dBA. A 3 dBA change in sound is the level where humans generally notice a barely perceptible change in sound and a 5 dBA change is generally readily perceptible.
The predominant rating scales for human communities are the LEQ, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), and the Day-Night Average Sound Level (LDN), all of which are based on dBA. The LEQ is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample period. The CNEL is the average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Sensitive Noise Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLU) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, such as residential dwellings, transient lodging, hospitals, educational facilities, libraries, and sensitive habitat. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise. NSLUs in the project area include single-family residences and sensitive habitat (southern willow riparian forest for least Bell’s vireo, Diegan coastal sage scrub for coastal California gnatcatcher, and mature ornamental trees for nesting raptors). a) Would the project result in 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 with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would occur within the jurisdiction for the noise regulations for the City of Santee, City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego. The applicable noise regulations are described below.
Noise Regulations
City of Santee Noise Ordinance
The City of Santee’s Noise Ordinance is codified in Chapter 8.12 of Santee’s Municipal Code. Section 8.12.040 of the City of Santee Municipal Code states that it shall be unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise (except construction noise, described below) to the extent that the dBA LEQ (1-hour), at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property on which the sound is produced, exceeds the applicable limits listed in Table 12, City of Santee Property Line Noise Limits. The
85 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 sound level limit on a boundary between two different zones is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two zones.
Table 12 CITY OF SANTEE PROPERTY LINE NOISE LIMITS
Applicable Noise Limit Zone Time (dBA LEQ [1-hour]) A-70 (Limited Agriculture), A-72 (General Agriculture), R- 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 50 S (Single-Family Residential), R-V (Variable Residential), 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 45 R-R (Rural Residential), R-MH (Mobile Home Residential), S-87 (Limited Control), S-88 (Specific Planning), S-90 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 40 (Holding Area) 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 55 R-U (Urban Residential), R-C (Residential/Commercial), 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 50 and C-31 (Residential-Office) 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 60 All other commercial zones 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 55 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 M-50 (Basic Industrial), M-52 (Limited Impacts Industrial) Anytime 70 All other industrial zones Anytime 75 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 60 The sound level at the location on a boundary between 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 55 an industrial zone and a residential zone 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50
For construction activities, Section 8.12.290 of the City of Santee Municipal Code states that it shall be unlawful for construction equipment to be operated on Sundays, major holidays, or between the hours of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday. If construction is to occur between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, construction equipment shall not exceed 75 dBA for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period when measured at the property line of a residential use.
If construction is to occur during the hours of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., on Sunday, or a holiday, a variance may be obtained from the noise control officer as described in Section 8.12.070 of the City of Santee Municipal Code. The officer may grant a variance after considering the magnitude of the nuisance, the uses of property within the area of impingement by the noise, operations carried on under existing nonconforming rights or conditional use permits or zone variances, the time factors related to study, design, financing and construction of remedial work, the economic factors related to age and useful life of the equipment and general public interest and welfare.
City of San Diego Noise Ordinance
Regarding construction noise, Chapter 5, Article 9.5, Division 4, §59.5.0404 of the City of San Diego Municipal Code states that it shall be unlawful for any person, between the hours of 7 p.m. of any day and 7 a.m. of the following day, or on legal holidays, or on Sundays, to erect, construct, demolish, excavate for, alter or repair any building or structure in such a manner as to create disturbing, excessive or offensive noise unless a permit has been applied for and granted beforehand by the Noise Abatement and Control Administrator. The code also states that it shall be unlawful for any person, including the City of San Diego, to conduct any construction activity so as to cause, at or beyond the property lines of any property zoned residential, an average sound level greater than 75 dBA during the 12-hour period from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., unless the work is considered emergency work.
86 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Regarding operational noise, Chapter 5, Article 9.5, Division 4, §59.5.0401, Sound Level Limits of the City of San Diego Municipal Code states that it shall be unlawful for any person to cause noise by any means to the extent that the one-hour average sound level exceeds the applicable limit given in Table 13, City of San Diego Noise Limits, at any location in the City on or beyond the boundaries of the property on which the noise is produced. The noise subject to these limits is that part of the total noise at the specified location that is due solely to the action of said person. In addition, the sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two zoning districts is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two districts.
Table 13 CITY OF SAN DIEGO NOISE LIMITS
One-hour Land Use Zone Time of Day Average Sound Level (dBA) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 50 Single Family Residential 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 45 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 40 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 55 Multi-Family Residential 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 (up to a maximum density of 1/2000) 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60 All other Residential 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 65 Commercial 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 60 Industrial or Agricultural anytime 75 Source: City of San Diego Municipal Code, Chapter 5, Article 9.5, Division 4, §59.5.0401, Sound Level Limits
County of San Diego Noise Ordinance
Sections 36.401 through 36.423 of the County of San Diego Municipal Code (County 2008a) discuss further County noise requirements. The purpose of the Noise Ordinance is to regulate noise in the unincorporated area of the County to promote the public health, comfort and convenience of the County's inhabitants and its visitors.
The Noise Ordinance sets limits pertaining to the generation of exterior noise. It is unlawful for any person to cause or allow the creation of any noise to the extent that the one-hour average sound level at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property will exceed the applicable limits in Table 14, County of San Diego Municipal Code Exterior Sound Level Limits.
87 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Table 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MUNICIPAL CODE EXTERIOR SOUND LEVEL LIMITS
One-Hour Average Sound Zone Time Level Limits (dBA) (1) R-S, R-D, R-R, R-MH, A-70, A-72, S-80, S-81, S-87, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 50 S-90, S-92 and R-V and R-U with a density of less than 11 dwelling units per acre. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 45 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 55 (2) R-R-O, R-C, R-M, S-86, V5 and R-V and R-U with
a density of 11 or more dwelling units per acre. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 60 (3) S-94, V4 and all other commercial zones. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55 (4) V1, V2 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. 60 V1, V2 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. 55 V1 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 55 V2 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 50 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 70 V3 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 65 (5) M-50, M-52 and M-54 Anytime 70 (6) S-82, M-56 and M-58 Anytime 75 (7) S-88 (see subsection (c) below) - - Source: County of San Diego Municipal Code Section 36.404. Zoning Code Definitions: R-S = Single-Family Residential; R-D = Duplex Residential; R-R = Rural Residential; R-MH = Mobile home Residential; A-70 = Limited Agriculture; A-72 = General Agriculture; S-80 = Open Space; S-90 = Holding Area; S-92 = General Rural; S-94 = Transportation and Utility Corridor; R-V = Variable-Family Residential; R-R-O = Residential Recreation Oriented; R-C = Residential-Commercial; R-M = Multi-Family Residential; S-86 = Parking; R-U = Urban Residential; V1, V2, V3, V4, and V5 = Village Designations; M-50 = Basic Industrial; M-52 = Limited Industrial; M-54 = General Impact Industrial; S-82 = Extractive Use; M-56 = Mixed Industrial; M-58 = High-Impact Industrial; S-88 = Specific Plan
• If the measured ambient level exceeds the applicable limit noted above, the allowable one-hour average sound level shall be the ambient noise level, plus 3 dBA. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the alleged noise violation source is not operating.
• The sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two zones is the arithmetic mean of the respective limits for the two zones; provided however, that the one-hour average sound level limit applicable to extractive industries, including but not limited to borrow pits and mines, shall be 75 dBA at the property line regardless of the zone which the extractive industry is actually located.
• S-88 zones are Specific Planning Areas that allow for different uses. The sound level limits in Table 14 above that apply in an S-88 zone depend on the use being made of the property. The limits in Table 14, subsection (1) apply to property with a residential, agricultural, or civic use. The limits in subsection (5) apply to property with an industrial use that would only be allowed in an M-50, M-52, or M-54 zone. The limits in subsection (6) apply to all property with an extractive use or a use that would only be allowed in an M-56 or M-58 zone.
88 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
• A fixed-location public utility distribution or transmission facility located on or adjacent to a property line shall be subject to the sound level limits of this section, measured at or beyond six feet from the boundary of the easement upon which the facility is located.
Section 36.409, Construction Noise
Except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate construction equipment or cause construction equipment to be operated, that exceeds an average sound level of 75 dBA for an eight-hour period, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is being received.
Section 36.410, Impulsive Noise
Section 36.410 provides additional limitation on construction equipment beyond Section 36.404 pertaining to impulsive noise. Except for emergency work or work on a public road project, no person shall produce or cause to be produced an impulsive noise that exceeds the maximum sound level shown in Table 15, County of San Diego Maximum Sound Levels (Impulsive), when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is received, for 25 percent of the minutes in the measurement period.
Table 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MAXIMUM SOUND LEVELS (IMPULSIVE)
Occupied Property Use dBA LMAX Residential, village zoning or civic use 82 Agricultural, commercial or industrial use 85 Source: County of San Diego Municipal Code Section 36.410
The minimum measurement period for any measurements is one hour. During the measurement period, a measurement must be conducted every minute from a fixed location on an occupied property. The measurements must measure the maximum sound level during each minute of the measurement period. If the sound level caused by construction equipment or the producer of the impulsive noise exceeds the maximum sound level for any portion of any minute, it will be deemed that the maximum sound level was exceeded during that minute.
County Consolidated Fire Code (Section 96.1.5601.2)
Blasting activities are regulated by the County Consolidated Fire Code within Section 96.1.5601.2. A blasting permit must be issued by the Sheriff prior to commencement of any blasting operations. Per Section 5601.2.6, blasting is only allowed Monday through Saturday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or ½ hour before sunset, whichever occurs first, unless special circumstances requiring other time or days is approved by the County. The County code also specifies requirements of noticing for surrounding property owners and the completion of pre- and post-blasting inspection reports.
89 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Construction
Construction of the project would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. Construction activities would involve the use of heavy equipment during land clearing, trenching and extraction, demolition of structures, construction of structures, and installation of equipment. Construction noise from each facility are described below.
Influent Pump Station
Improvements to the IPS would require the removal of existing equipment and installation of new pumps. Construction noise would be relatively minor and would be concentrated within existing land owned by the District. Construction impacts for construction of the IPS would be less than significant.
Ray Stoyer WRF
Construction related to expansion of the Ray Stoyer WRF, SHERF, and AWTP Facility would generate elevated noise levels. Construction and demolition activities would require the use of multiple pieces of equipment at different times. Construction and grading would be the loudest phase of construction for all construction activities. The loudest combination of equipment would be from the use of a dump truck, dozer, grader, and vibratory roller simultaneously during project construction.
Noise generated by construction activity at these sites would potentially affect sensitive habitat and future residents. Habitat suitable for coastal California gnatcatchers is located in the adjacent undeveloped lands to the east and west, and least Bell’s vireo habitat is located to the west. Equipment would move across the site throughout a given construction day; however, on average, equipment would be approximately 230 feet from adjacent sensitive habitats at any given time. For the purposes of this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that construction equipment would be located 75 feet from sensitive habitat. Future residential sensitive receptors at the Fanita Ranch development would be located at a distance of approximately 400 feet.
The use of a dump truck, dozer, grader, and roller during construction would generate noise levels of approximately 80 dBA LEQ (one hour) at 75 feet for sensitive habitats, and 65 dBA LEQ (eight hour) at 400 feet for residences. Noise levels would be less than significant for future residents at the Fanita Ranch development; however, noise levels at nearby sensitive habitat would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-4, CFMP Noi-5, and ECAWP Noi-5 would reduce potential impacts using noise barriers and/or temporary construction scheduling. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Pipeline from AWTP to Lake Jennings
Trenching
The approximately 10-mile pipeline from the AWTP Facility to Lake Jennings would require conventional open-cut trenching. Refer to Figure 2 for trenching locations. Trenching would require the use of an excavator, loader, and dump truck in close proximity to nearby residences and other NSLUs. Trenching would be completed at a rate of approximately 100 to 120 feet per day per work area. Multiple work areas could increase overall trenching rates. For this analysis, it was assumed that an excavator would be in operation within the vicinity of a given NSLU for four hours out of a work day. A loader and dump
90 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 truck would be generating noise for one hour out of a work day. Modeling assumes the equipment would be in operation for 40 percent of a typical construction hour.
If trenching occurs within 49 feet of a residence, noise levels would exceed the 75 dBA LEQ (8 hour) threshold. If construction occurs within 493 feet of a biologically sensitive habitat, noise levels would exceed the 60 dBA LEQ threshold. Therefore, impacts from trenching within these distances would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-4, CFMP Noi-5, and ECAWP Noi-5 would reduce potential impacts using setback distances and/or noise barriers. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Jack and Bore
At five locations along the approximately 10-mile pipeline from the AWTP Facility to Lake Jennings, jack and bore construction would be required to extend pipeline beneath areas where trenching is not feasible. Jack and bore would require the excavation of two pits at either end of the segment. An excavator, loader, and dump truck would be required to excavate each pit (for impacts from these pieces of equipment, see trenching discussion above).
A drill requiring the use of a diesel engine and generator would be located in one pit. The drill would then bore through the ground and be received at the other end. A generator would be located above- ground adjacent to the pit. A diesel engine would be located within the pit to power the drill, with this location below ground providing approximately 5 dBA of noise attenuation. It was assumed that the generator and diesel engine would be in operation for four hours out of a work day. Modeling assumes the equipment would be in operation for 50 percent of a typical construction hour. Because construction would occur at various distances from receptors, the results are provided as setback distances from the noise-generating equipment.
If jack and bore construction occurs within 55 feet of a residence, noise levels would exceed the 75 dBA LEQ (8 hour) threshold. If construction occurs within 307 feet of a biologically sensitive habitat, noise levels would exceed the 60 dBA LEQ threshold. Therefore, impacts from jack and bore construction within these distances would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-4, CFMP Noi-5, and ECAWP Noi-5 would reduce potential impacts using setback distances and/or noise barriers. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Horizontal Directional Drilling
At two locations along the approximately 10-mile pipeline from the AWTP Facility to Lake Jennings, horizontal directional drilling would be required to extend pipeline beneath areas where trenching is not feasible. Horizontal directional drilling would require the use of a generator and diesel engine to power the drill. The diesel engine would be located at ground level. For this analysis, it was assumed that the generator and diesel engine would be in operation for four hours out of a work day. Modeling assumes the equipment would be in operation for 50 percent of a typical construction hour.
If horizontal directional drilling requiring the use of a generator and diesel engine occurs within 67 feet of a residence, noise levels would exceed the 75 dBA LEQ (8 hour) threshold. If construction occurs within 378 feet of a biologically sensitive habitat, noise levels would exceed the 60 dBA LEQ threshold. Therefore, impacts from horizontal directional drilling construction within these distances would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-4, CFMP Noi-5,
91 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 and ECAWP Noi-5 would reduce potential impacts using setback distances and/or noise barriers. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Rock Crushing
To assist in open-cut trenching or other activities, blasting and hard rock handling may be required. Rock excavation may be required along several areas of the AWP Pipeline alignment and during construction of the EMG project components and residuals bypass system. Specifically, crushing and breaking of large material near NSLUs are anticipated in an area to the east of Mapleview Street and west of El Monte Road. If rock crushing is to be conducted at any location, machinery should be located at the furthest distance from surrounding residences or sensitive habitats. Rock crushing machinery may emit noise levels up to 95 dBA at 50 feet (Medlin & Associates 2014). Assuming a rock crusher is approximately 500 feet from the nearest residences, and assuming a noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, noise levels from the rock crusher would reduce to 75 dBA LEQ at a distance of 500 feet. If on-site rock crushing is required within this distance, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-3, CFMP Noi-4, CFMP Noi-5, and ECAWP Noi-7 would reduce potential impacts using setback distances and/or noise barriers. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Dechlorination Facility, Inlet, and Lake Jennings Facilities
Construction equipment for the installation of the dechlorination facility would be located within 350 feet of a single-family residence to the south. The nearest residences and campground facilities to the construction area for the above-ground pipeline and cascading water feature and inlet to Lake Jennings would be about 1,000 feet away. Standard construction equipment such as a crane, which has a noise level of 85 dBA at 50 feet, would potentially be used at these locations. At a distance of 350 feet from the dechlorination facility, this noise level would be reduced to approximately 68 dBA, which would not be significant. At a distance of 1,000 feet from the cascading water feature and inlet to Lake Jennings, this noise level would be reduced to approximately 59 dBA LEQ, which would not be significant. If construction is required during the breeding seasons for the coastal California gnatcatcher (February 15 to August 31) or least Bell’s vireo (March 15 to September 15), and if sensitive habitat located within 500 feet of construction activities is determined to be occupied by either of these species, impacts could be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1I would reduce potential impacts using setback distances and/or noise barriers. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
East Mission Gorge Pump Station and Force Main
Upgrades to the EMG Pump Station would require removal and replacement of existing interior equipment. Noise generated externally during these activities would be minimal, and impacts would be less than significant.
The EMG Force Main would require trenching and horizontal directional drilling from the EMG Pump Station to the Ray Stoyer WRF. All construction would be located within the City of Santee, except for horizontal directional drilling, which may be required within the City of San Diego. Noise levels from these construction activities would be similar to those discussed under the “Pipeline from AWTP to Lake Jennings” discussion. If construction occurs within the setback distances discussed above, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-4, CFMP
92 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Noi-5, and ECAWP Noi-5 would reduce potential impacts using setback distances and/or noise barriers. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Residuals Bypass System
Construction noise related to the Residuals Bypass System would be similar to that of the EMG Force Main and AWP Pipeline. If construction occurs within the setback distances discussed above, impacts would be potentially significant.
Construction noise for the lift station would be relatively minor and would be concentrated within existing land owned by the District. Construction impacts for construction of the lift station would be less than significant.
Construction Traffic
According to the traffic report prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG; 2018) found in Appendix G, construction would add up to 1,194 ADT per day (when not including the PCE factor, which is not applicable to a noise analysis). This would be dispersed across the project construction areas, although the majority of the trips would occur to and from the Ray Stoyer WRF area. A general rule of thumb is that a doubling of traffic would cause a doubling in sound energy (a 3-dBA increase). This would be a perceptible change, and therefore a significant increase.
According to the project’s traffic report, existing traffic volumes in the Ray Stoyer WRF area are as low as 2,610 ADT on Fanita Parkway (between Ganley Road and Lake Canyon Road; LLG 2018). Assuming that all Ray Stoyer WRF traffic trips (777 ADT) use this roadway, it would not represent a doubling of traffic and therefore not a significant increase in traffic noise. The other roadways contained in the traffic report would have higher traffic volumes and would be anticipated to have lower traffic increases from project construction. Therefore, noise impacts from construction traffic are less than significant.
Access to the cascading water feature would require an additional 24 ADT of construction traffic around Lake Jennings. This would include 14 haul trips. If a western route through the Lake Jennings Campground is used, construction vehicles would be within 30 feet of individual campsites. Even with vehicles driving at the campground’s posted speed limit of 10 mph, the addition of 24 trips per day would potentially result in noise levels exceeding 60 dBA LEQ. This would potentially be a 3 dBA increase above existing noise levels, and noise impacts from construction traffic at the Lake Jennings Campground would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP-Noi-8 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
If an eastern route is used, construction vehicles would travel within 60 feet of mobile homes at the Lake Jennings Park Estates, and within 700 feet of residences along Quail Canyon Road. At these distances, noise levels may be 57.6 dBA LEQ at 60 feet and 41.3 dBA LEQ at 700 feet. Residences at the nearby Lake Jennings Park Estates may therefore be subjected to a 3 dBA increase above existing noise levels, and noise impacts from construction traffic would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP-Noi-8 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
93 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Operation
The project would generate elevated noise levels during operation of its individual components. Operational noise sources would include equipment at the IPS, Ray Stoyer WRF, AWTP Facility, SHERF, EMG Pump Station, the Residuals Bypass System lift station, and at the Lake Jennings facilities.
Influent Pump Station
A generator at the IPS south of Santee Lakes would be contained within the District property. Noise levels from the generator would not exceed the City of Santee limits at nearby property lines. Impacts from operational noise at the IPS would be less than significant.
Ray Stoyer WRF, SHERF, and AWTP Facilities
The addition of new equipment during the combined operations of the Ray Stoyer WRF, SHERF, and AWTP Facility would generate elevated noise levels as compared to existing conditions. The Ray Stoyer WRF, SHERF, and AWTP would be most similar to a commercial zone and are therefore analyzed under commercial zoning noise limits. The nearest NSLU to these operations are residential uses proposed at the Fanita Ranch development to the east, also within the City of Santee. Therefore, the standards used for this analysis at the adjacent residential zone property line would be 55 dBA LEQ from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 50 dBA LEQ from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA LEQ from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (the arithmetic mean of the respective limits between commercial and residential zones). As the emergency backup generator at the headworks facility would only be tested during the daytime hours and would only be used during the nighttime hours during emergency, the generator is analyzed at the 50 dBA LEQ standard.
From full buildout and operation of the Ray Stoyer WRF, SHERF, and AWTP Facility, noise levels would be most elevated east of the SHERF’s cogeneration power generators, exceeding 75 dBA LEQ. Noise levels would exceed 70 dBA LEQ west of the Ray Stoyer WRF facility and SHERF, and would exceed 65 dBA LEQ to the north, east, and west of all project facilities. These noise levels would be anticipated to exceed 45 dBA LEQ at the future property lines of the Fanita Ranch residences, the nearest of which would be 400 feet to the east from the project facilities. Furthermore, noise levels would be above the 60 dBA LEQ sensitive habitat noise limit for nearby least Bell’s vireo and coastal California gnatcatcher habitats. Given the aforementioned, impacts from operational noise of facilities at the Ray Stoyer WRF facilities would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Noi-2 and ECAWP Noi-1 through Noi-3 would reduce potential impacts through the use of noise attenuating design features, and impacts would be less-than-significant.
Lake Jennings Facilities
Aeration would be provided within Lake Jennings via an air dispersion system connected to a proposed enclosed aeration blower and emergency generator located at the area of the dam adjacent to the lake. The aeration would be within the lake and would not be audible from the shoreline. Sensitive habitat associated with the coastal California gnatcatcher is nearby, however the 60 dBA LEQ noise levels from the generator would mostly radiate out over Lake Jennings. Due to the facility’s location atop Chet Harritt Dam, no habitat would be affected by elevated noise levels from the generator. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
94 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
East Mission Gorge Pump Station
The EMG Pump Station is an existing facility within the City of San Diego that houses pump station equipment. External noise sources include ventilation equipment and small pumps. The project would update the internal main pumps which would not be audible outside the structure. The project’s new noise source would be an external emergency generator located outside the building. The exact location for the generator is not known at this time, but it is conservatively modeled at a distance of 25 feet from the northern and western property line.
Habitat for least Bell’s vireo is located adjacent to the site to the north and west, at a distance of approximately 25 feet from the generator. During a site visit for the project’s AAR, the applicable ambient noise measurement for this location was measured to be 66 dBA. Since the existing noise environment is above 60 dBA LEQ, noise impacts would be significant if operations increase the ambient noise level by 3 dBA at the edge of occupied habitat. At a distance of 25 feet, noise levels may be as high as 80 dBA LEQ, which would increase ambient noise levels by more than 3 dBA. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Noi-4 would require the use of a noise-attenuating enclosure and would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Residuals Bypass System
The Residuals Bypass System would potentially require the construction of a 50-SF lift station with two 30-HP pumps (one active and one backup pump). Two 30 HP pumps at the lift station location south of Santee Lakes would be contained within the District property. Noise levels from the pumps would not exceed the City of Santee limits at any nearby property lines, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. An excavator would be expected to create the highest vibration levels during demolition or excavation. Per Caltrans guidance, an excavator is expected to generate vibration levels of 0.089 peak particle velocity (PPV) inches per second (in/sec) at 25 feet. The closest vibration sensitive land use from trenching would be the single-family residences along the AWP pipeline, located at a distance of 25 feet of the pipeline centerline. Therefore, as the excavator’s vibration would be below Caltrans’ severe human response threshold criterion of 0.4 PPV inches per second (Caltrans 2013) at 25 feet, vibration impacts from an excavator would be less than significant.
A vibratory roller would be expected to create the highest vibration levels during fill compaction. Per Caltrans guidance, a vibratory roller is expected to generate vibration levels of 0.210 PPV in/sec at 25 feet. The closest vibration sensitive land use from fill compaction would be single-family residences along the AWP pipeline, located at a distance of approximately 25 feet from possible vibratory roller operation. Therefore, as the vibratory roller’s vibration would be below the criterion of 0.4 PPV in/sec at 25 feet, vibration impacts from a vibratory roller would be less than significant.
Blasting may occur along several areas of the AWP Pipeline alignment and during construction of the EMG project components, most likely being the area along Mapleview Street south of Hansen Pond. At the current stage of planning, exact blasting requirements are unknown, including the associated quantities of blasts, blast fuel, holes per blast and area per blast. However, if blasting is to occur, it could
95 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 cause damage due to the vibration generated, and impacts are conservatively assessed as potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Noi-3 would require a blasting and geotechnical consultant to prepare a plan and monitor activities to reduce any damage caused by vibration. This would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Operation
Less than significant impact. The project does not propose equipment that would generate substantial vibration. Operational vibration impacts are less than significant. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As discussed in Section XII.a, the proposed project would have the potential to generate substantial new operational noise above applicable noise standards. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP-Noi-2 and ECAWP Noi-1 through ECAWP Noi-4 would reduce potential impacts through the use of noise attenuating design features. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As discussed in Section XII.a, the proposed project would have the potential to generate construction noise above applicable noise standards. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-3 through CFMP Noi-5, and ECAWP Noi-5 through ECAWP Noi-7 would require the use of temporary noise barriers, construction scheduling. This would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. 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?
No impact. The proposed project is not located within the 60 CNEL noise contour for Gillespie Field or within two miles of the airport (Airport Land Use Commission 2010). Therefore, no impacts would occur. 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.
Mitigation
To ensure that noise levels generated by the project are within acceptable noise levels, the following mitigation measures from the CFMP PEIR shall be implemented:
96 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
CFMP Noi-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis for Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP Facility Expansions. Final design for the expansions of the Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP facility shall demonstrate that sufficient noise attenuation is adequate to ensure that exterior noise levels generated from the Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP facility shall not exceed the City of Santee one-hour exterior noise limit at the nearest residential property line of 55 dBA LEQ from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 50 dBA LEQ from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dBA LEQ from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
The District shall require the preparation of a final noise impact analysis by a qualified acoustical consultant as part of the facilities design submittal for the Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP facility expansions. The final noise impact analysis shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. If the analysis indicates an exceedance of noise ordinance limits from the expansions, the District shall install additional noise abatement sufficient to reduce noise to the limits of the applicable standards. These abatement measures could include noise abatement inside the facilities (e.g., higher Sound Transmission Class [STC] windows, new equipment with a lower sound power rating, or repositioning of equipment) or a noise barrier (e.g., fences, walls, or full enclosure of the facility/device). The specific additional features, if required, shall be determined by the qualified acoustical consultant based on the results of the final noise analysis. The features shall be installed, and their effectiveness in achieving applicable noise limits verified by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to operation of the facilities.
The following mitigation measure from the CFMP PEIR is required for potential blasting activities:
CFMP Noi-3 Construction Vibration Control Measures. The following measures shall be implemented during construction of CFMP projects to minimize vibration effects to surrounding noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses:
• For any construction activities that include blasting, a qualified blasting consultant and geotechnical consultant shall prepare all required blasting plans and monitor all blasting activities in conformance with the standards of the State of California, Department of Mines.
• Noticing for blasting shall be provided between two and four weeks prior to construction to all residents or property owners within 600 feet of the alignment. The announcement shall state specifically where and when construction will occur in the area. If construction delays of more than seven days occur, an additional notice shall be made, either in person or by mail.
The following mitigation measures from the CFMP PEIR are required for construction activities that may result in potentially significant noise levels, as applicable:
97 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
CFMP Noi-4 Construction Noise Limits. Construction activities shall comply with the following local noise ordinances where feasible:
• City of Santee: A noise level limit of 75 dBA (8 hour LEQ) between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and no construction on Sundays, major holidays, and between 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday.
• City of San Diego: A noise level limit of 75 dBA (12 hour LEQ) between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and no construction on Sundays, major holidays, and between 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday.
• County of San Diego: A noise level limit of 75 dBA (8 hour LEQ) between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
If noise levels fail to comply with the local ordinances, the District shall implement sound control methods that reduce the noise levels to the specified limits, including those listed below in measure CFMP Noi-5.
CFMP Noi-5 Construction Noise Reduction Measures. The following measures shall be implemented during project construction:
• Heavy equipment shall be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences.
• Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators and compressors, shall be maintained in proper operating condition and would be equipped with manufacturers’ standard noise control devices or better (e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging, and/or engine enclosures).
• Electrical power shall be supplied from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, in order to avoid or minimize the use of engine-driven generators.
• Paging and alarm systems used by the District shall be installed so that noise emissions are directed away from, and shielded from, sensitive receptors. Personal paging systems and light alarms shall be used where feasible.
• Staging areas for construction equipment shall be located as far as practicable from residences.
• If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices shall be powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine.
• The District or their construction contractors shall provide advance notice, between two and four weeks prior to construction, by mail to all residents or property owners within 300 feet of the construction work areas of CFMP projects. The announcement shall state specifically where and when construction would occur in the area. If construction delays of more than seven days occur, an additional notice shall be made, either in person or by mail.
98 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
• Nighttime construction work shall be avoided where possible. Should nighttime construction work be necessary in areas that may affect residential or hotel/motel land uses, the District’s contractor shall ensure that nighttime construction noise levels do not exceed a one-hour limit of 70 dBA LEQ for more than five consecutive days. In addition to the above noise minimization measures, temporary sound barriers may be installed as appropriate between the construction work area and affected noise-sensitive land uses.
• The District shall 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 District shall 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 shall be included in notices distributed to the public in accordance with the information above.
In accordance with CFMP Noi-1 (Operational Compliance with Noise Regulations) which states that operating equipment shall be designed to comply with applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations, the following measures, ECAWP Noi-1 through ECAWP Noi-4, would mitigate the potentially significant noise impacts to less-than-significant levels:
ECAWP Noi-1 Ray Stoyer WRF Headworks Noise Reduction. Noise levels from the Ray Stoyer WRF Headworks shall be reduced to not exceed 45 dBA LEQ at the nearest residential property lines and 60 dBA LEQ at the nearest sensitive habitat. Noise from the headworks emergency generator shall not exceed 55 dBA LEQ (daytime limit) at the nearest residential property line.
Noise reduction for the Headworks shall be demonstrated on the design plans prior to construction. Designs shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant to ensure compatibility with the aforementioned noise standards.
Measures to reduce noise levels to below a level of significance may include, but are not limited to, the use of barriers, noise-attenuating windows and doors, noise absorptive material, equipment modifications, or a combination of these measures. Any emergency generators associated with the headworks shall comply with the 55 dBA LEQ daytime limit. This may be accomplished with a noise control barrier or enclosure.
ECAWP Noi-2 SHERF Cogeneration Noise Reduction. Noise levels from the SHERF cogeneration power generators shall be reduced to not exceed the nighttime limits of 45 dBA LEQ at the nearest residential property lines and 60 dBA LEQ at the nearest sensitive habitat.
Noise reduction for the SHERF components shall be demonstrated on the design plans prior to construction. Designs shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant to ensure compatibility with the aforementioned noise standards.
99 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
The SHERF’s cogeneration power generators may include, but are not limited to, the following noise-control measures:
• In-line air silencers in intake and exhaust air ducts to meet the minimum criteria shown below in Table 16, SHERF Noise Control Features.
• Forced air blowers for air movement.
• Engine exhaust silencer meeting the minimum standards of a Silex SE-12 shown below in Table 16.
• Exterior generator room door(s) shall have a minimum manufacturers STC rating of 55.
• Any exterior mounted silencers, interior silencers and any ducting between interior room walls and silencers may have an exterior steel shielding layer (18-gauge minimum thickness) with 2-inch (or thicker) noise absorbing inner layer.
• No doors or air openings in the walls facing the property lines; all doors and air openings would be in the walls perpendicular to the property lines.
• Building construction with 8-inch (or thicker) grouted concrete masonry unit (CMU) or poured cement.
Alternate mitigation may include relocating the cogeneration facilities further from the property line or by using updated noise source data at the time the final facilities layout is available, provided the noise levels are verified to be in compliance by a qualified acoustician.
Table 16 SHERF NOISE CONTROL FEATURES
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hertz) Manufacturer Model 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 Silence IN-Line Duct 34 52 51 51 55 55 49 51 Requirements Silex Eleminx SE-12 42 50 55 58 59.5 59.5 57 55 Noise Control Door STC 55 28 46 45 45 49 49 43 45
ECAWP Noi-3 AWTP Noise Reduction. Noise levels from the AWTP Facility shall be reduced to not exceed 45 dBA LEQ (nighttime limit) at the nearest residential property lines and 60 dBA LEQ at the nearest sensitive habitat.
Noise reduction for the AWTP Facility components shall be demonstrated on the design plans prior to construction. Designs shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant to ensure compatibility with the aforementioned noise standards.
100 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Measures to reduce noise levels to below a level of significance may include, but are not limited to, the full enclosure of noise-generating AWTP Facility systems in a structure or building. If AWTP Facility systems are enclosed to ensure noise reduction, the following noise reduction measures may be implemented:
• Any openings facing to the north, south, and east have solid core steel doors with good seals, window systems with a manufacturers STC rating equal to or greater than 45.
• Any openings remain closed during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
• Any passive or active ventilation openings facing north, south, east, or on the roof provide noise reduction. Adequate noise reduction designs for ventilation may include acoustic louvers with the following minimum noise reduction values shown in Table 17, Acoustic Louver Octave Band Transmission Loss – AWTP Facility.
Table 17 ACOUSTIC LOUVER OCTAVE BAND TRANSMISSION LOSS - AWTP FACILITY
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hertz) Data Type 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 12-inch ALV-LV-12 (Minimum Loss) 6 10 12 16 23 26 20 22 Source: Vibro-Acoustics 2010 (Appendix F)
ECAWP Noi-4 EMG Pump Station Generator Noise Enclosure. The generator noise shall be reduced to 60 dBA LEQ or 3 dBA above ambient noise levels (whatever is higher) at the nearest sensitive habitat. This may be accomplished with a noise control barrier or enclosure.
Noise reduction for the EMG Pump Station generator shall be demonstrated on the design plans prior to construction. Designs shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant to ensure compatibility with the aforementioned noise standards.
To ensure noise reduction, attenuation may include, but is not limited to, the use of a noise absorptive material mounted to within two inches of the top of the enclosure walls. The material may be a minimum of two inches thick, with a minimum Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) of 0.9 by laboratory test rating.
The following project-specific mitigation measures may be required to further reduce potentially significant construction noise from pipeline construction:
ECAWP Noi-5 Trenching, Jack and Bore, and Horizontal Directional Drilling Noise Reduction Measures. For construction operations that would occur at movable locations along the pipeline alignment, the following setback distances would be necessary to maintain noise levels to within local standards.
For construction within the City of Santee or County of San Diego, construction noise shall not exceed 75 dBA LEQ (8 hour) as measured at the nearest NSLU.
101 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
During trenching activities in the City of Santee or County of San Diego, a noise barrier may be required. The height would be dependant on the proximity of construction to the nearest NSLU: 6-foot noise barrier within 49 feet of a NSLU, or an 8-foot noise barrier within 34 feet of a NSLU. The barrier shall be placed between the noise- generating equipment and NSLU.
During jack and bore construction in the City of Santee or County of San Diego, a noise barrier may be required. The height would be dependant on the proximity of construction to the nearest NSLU: a 6-foot noise barrier within 55 feet of a NSLU, an 8-foot noise barrier within 27 feet of a NSLU, or a 10-foot noise barrier within 15 feet of an NSLU. The barrier shall be placed between the noise-generating equipment and NSLU.
During horizontal directional drilling requiring the use of a generator and diesel engine in the City of Santee or County of San Diego, a noise barrier would be required. The height would be dependant on the proximity of construction to the nearest NSLU: a 6-foot noise barrier within 67 feet of a NSLU, an 8-foot noise barrier within 34 feet of a NSLU, or a 10-foot noise barrier within 19 feet of an NSLU. The barrier shall be placed between the noise-generating equipment and NSLU.
If a temporary barrier is used, all barriers shall be solid and constructed of masonry, wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those materials, with no cracks or gaps through or below the wall. Any seams or cracks must be filled or caulked. If wood is used, it can be tongue and groove or close butted seams and must be at least ¾-inch thick or have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per SF. Sheet metal of 18 gauge (minimum) may be used, if it meets the other criteria and is properly supported and stiffened so that it does not rattle or create noise itself from vibration or wind. Noise blankets, hoods, or covers also may be used, provided they are appropriately implemented to provide the required sound attenuation. The noise control barrier enclosures may be as an elongated “U” shape, with the elongated sides parallel to the pipeline.
ECAWP Noi-6 Rock Crushing Noise Reduction Measures. If on-site use of a rock crusher is required, it shall be located more than 500 feet from the nearest residence. If located within this distance, a temporary sound barrier shall be placed around the rock crusher which shields nearby residences. The barrier should stand at least as tall as the highest part of the crusher, at a minimum of eight feet.
ECAWP Noi-7 Lake Jennings Construction Traffic Plan. If construction traffic is required to be routed via Bass Road or Bass Drive around Lake Jennings to the site of the proposed water feature near Half Moon Cove, the District shall implement a construction traffic plan, in coordination with Helix Water District, to minimize disturbance to noise-sensitive recreational users and nearby residents. This may be accomplished through the incorporation of measures including, but not limited to: the restriction of haul trips per hour such that construction traffic does not increase hourly average ambient noise levels by 3 dBA LEQ or more; restricting trips to mid-day hours to minimize campground visitors’ and nearby residents’ sleep disturbance; or restricting construction activity to a season and/or day when the campground is not at peak use.
102 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion a) Would the project 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. As discussed in Section 5.1.4 of the CFMP PEIR, implementation of CFMP projects, including the proposed project, would not directly induce population growth because no new homes or businesses are proposed that would directly attract new growth. Additionally, implementation of the project would not indirectly induce population growth because the CFMP projects have been developed to accommodate projected population growth of the region through 2040. Therefore, the projected population growth of the region that would be accommodated by the proposed project was based upon existing and planned land use data for the project area. The proposed project would not result in population growth and no impacts would occur. b) Would the project 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) Would the project 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.
103 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?
Discussion a) 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 (fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, other public facilities)?
No impact. The proposed project involves the construction and operation of recycled water facilities and does not contain any residential or other land uses that would result in an increased demand for fire services, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. As such, the project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire, police, school, park, or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts and no related impacts would occur.
104 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
XV. RECREATION
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact 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? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
Discussion of potential temporary impacts related to construction traffic at the Lake Jennings campground can be found in the noise evaluation in Section XII. Potential impacts to the recreational fishery at Lake Jennings are discussed under biological resources in Section IV. 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 have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No impact. The following discussion addresses XV (a) and (b). The proposed project involves the construction and operation of recycled water facilities and does not contain any residential or other land uses that would introduce new residents to the area. Construction of the portion of the AWP pipeline near the Historic Flume Trail would require temporary closure of the public trail and trailhead parking facility for approximately six months. However, upon completion of that component, public access to the trail would be restored. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact the use of parks or other recreational facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of new recreational facilities. There would be no impact related to increased use or construction/expansion of recreational facilities.
105 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation n including mass transit and non-motorized travel and 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion
A project-level Construction Traffic Analysis (CTA) was prepared by LLG (2018) for the proposed project and is attached as Appendix G. Analysis and conclusions from the CTA are provided in the discussion below.
106 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation n including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Would the project 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 with mitigation incorporated. The following discussion addresses XVI (a) and (b). The project site includes locations in the northern portion of the City of Santee and in the unincorporated community of Lakeside in the County of San Diego. Access to the Ray Stoyer WRF is provided from Fanita Parkway via a private asphalt road maintained by the District.
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. Given the project components are spread throughout portions of the City of Santee and in the County, there are several different staging areas proposed, as described under Construction Staging in Section 2.0. For purposes of defining the study area for construction-related trips, five Project Areas have been defined. The areas were selected based on staging area location for each project component. The areas are defined as:
Area 1: Fanita Parkway to Sycamore Canyon Road (including private asphalt road)
Area 2: Padre Dam Operations Center at 9210 Carlton Oaks Drive
Area 3: Fanita Parkway to Sycamore Canyon Road (including private asphalt road) (Area 1); Mast Boulevard/Riverside Drive; Lakeside Avenue; Lake Jennings Park Road; El Monte Road
Area 4: Lake Jennings Park Road and El Monte Road
Area 5: Fanita Parkway 1,200 feet north of Mast Boulevard; Fanita Parkway to Sycamore Canyon Road (including private asphalt road) (Area 1); Padre Dam Operations Center at 9210 Carlton Oaks Drive (Area 2); EMGPS at Mission Gorge Road and State Route 125.
Lane Closures
Lane closures are anticipated for the EMG Force Main and the AWP Pipeline project components. For the EMG Force Main, lane closures would occur on Fanita Parkway from approximately 1,200 feet north of Mast Boulevard to Ganley Road. Duration of construction for the project component in this area is estimated for approximately 6 months.
For the AWP Pipeline component, all roadways with “open cut” construction techniques would be anticipated to incur lane closures. This affects Fanita Parkway (same locations as the EMG Force Main), Mast Boulevard, Riverside Drive, Lakeside Drive, Vine Street, Mapleview Street, and El Monte Road. Complete details on the temporary lane closure are currently not available at this time.
107 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
To account for the expected lane closures, traffic flow for one lane on each roadway was assumed to be reduced to accommodate construction. For any two-lane roadways that would be reduced to one bidirectional travel lane, traffic flow would be controlled by traffic control workers. Roadway capacities were reduced proportionally in modeling during this temporary closure.
It should be noted that there are roadways listed in the lane closures that are not analyzed on a daily basis. The roadways selected for analysis were those anticipated to receive 50 peak hour construction Project trips, per regional SANTEC/ITE guidelines. Roadways which would not be expected to receive 50 peak hour construction project trips (Riverside Drive, Vine Street, eastern portions of Mast Boulevard), primarily due to not being located in close proximity to a staging area, were not included in the analysis.
Analysis Assumptions
The project components have separate construction schedules with overlapping timelines. Since the sequencing of actual construction activities within each component is unknown, traffic generated by all project components was conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously.
Project construction is anticipated to begin July 2021. LLG developed an ambient growth factor of 2 percent per year for two years to add to existing volumes to establish “baseline” Year 2021 traffic volumes. Peak hour intersection and daily street segment operations were analyzed under the following scenarios:
• Existing • Near-Term Baseline (existing + cumulative growth) • Near-Term Baseline + Project
Existing conditions represents the existing on-the-ground conditions. LLG collected traffic data in February 2018 for use in the existing conditions analysis.
Near-Term Baseline conditions represent the time period in which construction activities are anticipated to start (approximately July 2021). Under such conditions, it would be expected that ambient growth would occur in the area which would increase the overall traffic volumes in the area.
Near-Term Baseline + Project conditions represent baseline time frame for construction activities with the addition of the traffic generated by all project components representing a worst-case conservative analysis.
The traffic study provides a capacity analysis utilizing the standard “additive” approach, where cumulative and project traffic volumes are added to existing volumes, and changes in capacity (Level of Service, delay, Volume/Capacity ratio) are measured and assessed. However, it is acknowledged that the traffic and trip distribution associated with the project’s various phasing and activities are estimates and could change, based on the natural variability of construction projects as compared to more typical development projects.
108 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Significance Criteria
City of Santee
A project is considered to have a significant impact if project traffic causes a location to degrade from an acceptable LOS D or better to LOS E or LOS F. For operating locations currently at LOS E or F, a significant impact would occur if the project causes an exceedance of the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) by 0.02 or decreases the speed by 1 mile per hour (mph) for roadway segments or causes a delay that exceeds 2.0 seconds at intersections.
County of San Diego
The following criteria were used to evaluate potential significant impacts, based on the County’s document, Guidelines for Determining Significance, August 24, 2011, for study area locations within the County of San Diego. Table 18, Allowable Increases on Congested Intersections, summarizes significant project impacts for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table 18 ALLOWABLE INCREASES ON CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service Signalized Unsignalized 20 or less peak hour trips on a critical LOS E Delay of 2 seconds or less movement Either a Delay of 1 second, or 5 peak hour 5 or less peak hour trips on a critical LOS F trips or less on a critical movement movement General Notes: 1. A critical movement is an intersection movement (right-turn, left-turn, or through-movement) that experiences excessive queues, which typically operate at LOS F. 2. By adding proposed project trips to all other trips from a list of projects, these same tables are used to determine if total cumulative impacts are significant. If cumulative impacts are found to be significant, each project is responsible for mitigating its share of the cumulative impact. 3. The County may also determine impacts have occurred on roads even when a project’s traffic or cumulative impacts do not trigger an unacceptable level of service, when such traffic uses a significant amount of remaining road capacity. 4. For determining significance at signalized intersections with LOS F conditions, the analysis must evaluate both the delay and the number of trips on a critical movement, exceedance of either criteria result in a significant impact.
Pursuant to the County’s General Plan Mobility Element, new development must provide improvements or other measures to mitigate traffic impacts to avoid: a reduction in LOS below “C” for on-site Mobility Element roads; a reduction in LOS below “D” for off-site and on-site abutting Mobility Element roads; and “significantly impacting congestion” on roads that operate at LOS “E” or “F”. The following significance guidelines define a method for evaluating whether increased traffic volumes generated or redistributed from a proposed project will “significantly impact congestion” on County roads, operating at LOS E or F, either currently or as a result of the project. Traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one or more of the following criteria will have a significant traffic volume or LOS impact on a road segment, unless specific facts show that there are other circumstances that mitigate or avoid such impacts:
109 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
• The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will significantly increase congestion on a Mobility Element Road or State Highway currently operating at LOS E or LOS F, or will cause a Mobility Element Road or State Highway to operate at a LOS E or LOS F as a result of the proposed project, or
• The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will cause a residential street to exceed its design capacity.
Section 12.04.290 of the City of Santee Municipal Code states that for all work performed within the public way, a permittee shall provide adequate warning to the public and shall follow Caltrans’ Traffic Manual guidelines (Caltrans 2014). If required, a traffic control plan shall be submitted with the permit at the time of permit application. The traffic control plan includes a list of signs to be used and a list of procedures that will be implemented during construction.
The County Department of Public Works requires a Traffic Control Permit for any work on a County- maintained road or in the County right-of-way. This permit would include the preparation of a traffic control plan, which would provide safe passage for the motoring public through the construction zone and safeguard construction workers.
Existing Conditions
AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volume counts and daily traffic volumes counts were collected in 2018 by LLG Engineers, when local schools were in session. Data for certain locations was taken from historical 2015 data and a growth rate of 2 percent per year for three years was applied to reflect Year 2018 conditions. Table 19, Existing Traffic Volumes, is a summary of the most recent available ADTs.
Table 19 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Street Segment Jurisdiction ADT Fanita Parkway 1. Ganley Road to Lake Canyon Road Santee 2,610 2. Lake Canyon Road to Mast Boulevard Santee 3,860 3. Mast Boulevard to Carlton Oaks Drive Santee 3,330 Mast Boulevard 4. Sycamore Landfill Road to Fanita Parkway Santee 19,540 Lakeside Avenue 5. Channel Road to SR 67 County 4,070 Mapleview Street/Lake Jennings Park Road 6. SR 67 to El Monte Road County 10,860 El Monte Road 7. North of Lake Jennings Park Road County 2,580 ADT = average daily traffic General Note: ADT volumes were collected by LLG Engineers in 2018, when local schools were in session. Lake Jennings Park Road and El Monte Road counts are from 2015. A growth factor of 2% per year for 3 years was applied to reach 2018 conditions.
110 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Trip Generation
LLG used estimates on the number of maximum daily vehicle round trips for each project component to calculate the number of ADT and estimated the number of in/out trips during the commuter peak hours based on the project’s hours of operations.
Material Truck Trips were provided for maximum construction activity for each project component. A passenger car equivalence (PCE) factor of 2.0 was applied to material truck trips to reflect the poor operating characteristics of these heavy vehicles in traffic flow. Material truck trips from construction operations are expected to spread evenly throughout the eight-hour work day.
Worker trips (private vehicle) trips were conservatively assumed to arrive and depart within the peak commuter periods of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM. Vendor Trips represent contractor support services and Construction Management/Testing support services. Vendor Trips were provided for peak daily construction activity for each project component. It was assumed these types of trips would be in private vehicles. Vendor Trips are expected to spread evenly throughout the eight-hour work day.
Table 7-1 in the construction traffic study (Appendix G) presents the project construction traffic generation by component and area. The total construction traffic that would be generated by assuming all project components occur simultaneously is calculated to be approximately 3,740 ADT with 959 trips during the AM peak hour (763 inbound/ 196 outbound) and 959 trips during the PM peak hour (203 inbound/ 756 outbound).
Trip Distribution/Assignment
The Project-generated traffic was distributed to the street system based on the assumed orientation of proximity to freeway routes given it would be undesirable to have construction traffic on local roadways. Factors contributing to the distribution patterns took into account the potential origin and destination of trip types and the locations of construction staging and parking areas. Construction staging and parking areas are spread along the Fanita Parkway-to-Sycamore Canyon Road corridor and near Mission Gorge Road/SR 125 in the City of Santee. In the community of Lakeside in the County, construction staging and parking areas run near the San Diego River at Riverford Road, Lakeside Road, Lake Jennings Road and El Monte Road. Figures 7-1 through 7–5 in Appendix G show the project trip distributions for Areas 1 through 5, respectively. Figure 10, Construction Traffic Volumes, shows the total project construction traffic volumes for all components.
Near Term Baseline
Near-term conditions were developed by applying a general growth factor to existing traffic volumes. The construction timeline for the project anticipates a future start date in July 2021 and lasts for approximately four and a half years. Therefore, a two percent (2%) growth rate per year for two years was applied to the existing 2018 traffic counts to forecast Near-Term baseline traffic conditions. Figure 11, Near-term Baseline Traffic Volumes, shows the Near-Term Baseline traffic volumes.
Under Near Term baseline conditions, with the addition of cumulative growth, all intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS C or better, except for:
• Intersection #6. Riverford Road / Riverside Drive – LOS E (AM peak hour) • Intersection #7. Lake Jennings Park Road / El Monte Road – LOS E (AM peak hour)
111 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Near Term Baseline Plus Project
The total project construction traffic volumes were conservatively assigned to the study area street system. Table 9–1 in Appendix G summarizes the Near-Term Baseline + Project intersections LOS. Figure 12, Near-term Baseline + Construction Traffic Volumes, shows the Near-Term Baseline + Project traffic volumes. With the addition of cumulative growth and the highest traffic-intensive activity of project traffic, all intersections are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better, except for three intersections (intersections #3, #6, and #7). The project would result in a significant cumulative intersection impact at the following two intersections:
• Intersection #3. Fanita Parkway / Mast Boulevard – LOS F/E (AM/PM peak hours) • Intersection #7. Lake Jennings Park Road / El Monte Road – LOS F (AM peak hour)
No significant impacts are calculated at the third intersection (Riverford Road/Riverside Drive) as the project-related increase in delay is less than the two seconds allowed by the significance criteria.
Table 9–2 in Appendix G summarizes the Near-Term Baseline + Project street segment operations. The following segments are calculated to operate at LOS F:
• Segment #1. Fanita Parkway: Ganley Road to Lake Canyon Road – LOS F (assuming 50% capacity during pipeline construction activity within the public roadway)
• Segment #2. Fanita Parkway: Lake Canyon Road to Mast Boulevard – LOS F (assuming 50 percent capacity during pipeline construction activity within the public roadway)
Summary
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. Given there are several overlapping activities among the various components, a conservative condition was assumed where all activities would overlap and occur simultaneously.
While traffic impacts from construction of the proposed project would be potentially significant, physical improvements to enhance capacity at any of the significantly impacted locations listed above to accommodate the additional construction trips would not be recommended, as the impacts would only occur during the temporary construction period. Implementation of the project-level mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts on traffic circulation during construction to a less than significant level.
Permanent traffic associated with operation of the proposed project would include worker trips and material/chemical deliveries; however, operation of the facilities would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips (see Appendix G) and related impacts would be less than significant.
112 East County Advanced Water Purification Project
(!1 (!
El Nopal Rd 155 / 385
d
n R o y n Ganley Rd a Mast Bl Riverside Dr C re 19 / 1 mo a c y S 1 / 19 386 / 157 Riverford Rd Riverford Fanita Pkwy Fanita
(!2 (!7
12 / 56 59 59 / 13 155 / 385 155
2 / 14
Lake Canyon Rd Julian Ave El Monte Rd 7 / 1 14 / 4
386 / 157 (!1 Ga nley Fanita Pkwy Fanita
Rd Lake Jennings Park Rd
(!3
9
5
e v A 156 / 404
e
d
2 / 28 i 2
s , 6 e k 9 a 9 L Mast Bl d C 1 R h 9 te 406 / 159 a 2 on n r n l M 28 / 2 de D e E i l rs 2 103 / 12 ive Rd 74 11 / 103 11 R L nyon Rd ake (!2 Lake Ca pleview St Je Ma nnin gs P Fanita Pkwy Fanita l Nopal Rd ark F E Rd
a
n i 6 t (! a
P R (!4 k (!7 l
w i B v
t e y s
2 a r f
o L , M a 6 r k d e
9 Je Lake
R nn 9 in d Ave gs lian Pa 103 / 12 Ju rk Jennings }67 Rd KJC-24 06/04/18 -RP Carlton Oaks Dr 11 / 103 S (!3 y c 70 a 3,0 m Bl o Mast re La 2 nd 7 fi 2 Fanita PkwyFanita ll Rd (!5 Mission Trails Park (!4
3 / 29 C a rl t er o v n Mission Grge Rd aks Dr Ri n O o H to i rl g l Ca e l 34 / 60 Di Bs
n 19 / 2 Sa l 2 / 19 209 (!5 SR-125 Rmps }52 Mission Gorge Rd
!# Study Intersections
AM / PM Intersection
AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes X,XXX Average Daily Trips }125 [ I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig10_ConstructionTrafficVolumes.indd N:\2869\Figures Source: Linscott, igure Law, and7-6 Greenspan, 2018 Date: 08/02/18 Total Project raffic olumes East CountyConstruction Advanced Water Purification Traffic Project Volumes Figure 10 East County Advanced Water Purification Project
(!1 (!
233 / 301
El Nopal Rd
12 / 40 14 / 23 307 / 191 284 / 204
63 / 41 d 471 / 536
n R o y n Ganley Rd a Mast Bl Riverside Dr C re 32 / 16 mo a 32 / 7
4 / 0 c y S 33 33 / 88 53 / 33 17 / 69 188 / 253 340 / 477 Riverford Rd Riverford Fanita Pkwy Fanita
(!2 (!7
32 / 17
10 / 21 27 / 31 108 / 80 25 25 / 34 3 / 7 / 505 254 30 30 / 33
93 / 55 49 / 60
Lake Canyon Rd Julian Ave El Monte Rd 0 / 2 42 / 29 21 / 22 0 / 10
78 78 / 96 101 / 163 46 / 18 42 42 / 135
(!1 140 / 104 501 / 301 Gan ley Fanita Pkwy Fanita
Rd Lake Jennings Park Rd
(!3 0 1 ,3
32 / 52 4
e
v 1,186 / 390 A 102 / 53 58 / 33 58 / 46 24
e
d
83 / 28 i 2
s , 7 e k 7 a 0 L Mast Bl 0 d C 81 R h , te 48 / 152 a 2 on n r n l M 464 / 982 de D e E i l rs 1 e Rd 1 27 27 / 48 99 / 52 38 / 35 32 / 31 Riv L ,84 nyon Rd ake 0 (!2 Lake Ca pleview St Je Ma nnin gs P Fanita Pkwy Fanita l Nopal Rd ark F E Rd
a
n i 6 t (! a
P R (!4 k (!7 l
w i B v
t e y s
4 a r f
o L , M a
0 r k
107 / 65 d e 9 Je Lake
R nn
0 in d e gs 719 / 269 Av lian Pa 119 / 29 146 / 93 0 / 1 Ju rk Jennings 0 / 10 }67 Rd
Carlton Oaks Dr 32 / 41 KJC-24 06/04/18 -RP S
(!3 y 329 / 341 c 10 4 / 2 5 / 8 a 20,7 m Bl 0 / 2 o Mast re La 3 n , d 5 fi Fanita PkwyFanita l 3 l R d 0 (!5 Mission Trails Park (!4
1,249 / 716
814 / 784 C a rl t er o v n Mission Grge Rd aks Dr Ri n O o H to i rl g l Ca e l 686 / 1,099 Di Bs
n 262 / 194 Sa l 712 / 165 867 / 914 48,170 (!5 SR-125 Rmps }52 Mission Gorge Rd
!# Study Intersections
AM / PM Intersection
AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes X,XXX Average Daily Trips }125 [ I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig11_NearTermBaseline.indd N:\2869\Figures Source: Linscott, igure Law, and8-1 Greenspan, 2018 Date: 08/02/18 ear erm aseline ra ic olumes Near-termEast County Advanced Baseline Water Purification Traffic Project Volumes Figure 11 East County Advanced Water Purification Project
(!1 (!
233 / 301
El Nopal Rd
12 / 40 155 / 385 14 / 23 307 / 191 284 / 204
63 / 41 d 471 / 536
n R o y n Ganley Rd a Mast Bl Riverside Dr C re 32 / 16 mo a c 32 / 7 y S 33 33 / 88 72 / 34 18 / 88 188 / 253 390 / 157 340 / 477 Riverford Rd Riverford Fanita Pkwy Fanita
(!2 (!7
44 / 73
10 / 21 27 / 31 25 / 34 263 / 465 263 3 / 7 / 505 254 89 / 46
93 / 55 51 / 74
Lake Canyon Rd Julian Ave El Monte Rd 0 / 2 42 / 29 21 / 22 0 / 10 78 78 / 96 101 / 163 60 / 22 508 / 302 428 / 292 (!1 140 / 104 Ga nley Fanita Pkwy Fanita
Rd Lake Jennings Park Rd
(!3 9 6 ,3
32 / 52 4
e
v 1,188 / 418 A 258 / 457 58 / 33 58 / 46 24
e
d
83 / 28 i 5
s , 4 e k 6 a 9 L Mast Bl 1 d C 10 R h , te 454 / 311 a 3 on n r n l M 492 / 984 de D e E i l rs 1 e Rd 202 / 64 27 / 48 32 / 31 iv 2,1 49 49 / 138 R L nyon Rd ake 14 (!2 Lake Ca pleview St Je Ma nnin gs P Fanita Pkwy Fanita l Nopal Rd ark F E Rd
a
n i 6 t (! a
P R (!4 k (!7 l
w i B v
t e y s
6 a r f
o L , M a
7 r k
107 / 65 d e 8 Je Lake
R nn
9 in d e gs 719 / 269 Av lian Pa 222 / 41 146 / 93 0 / 1 Ju rk Jennings 0 / 10 }67 Rd KJC-24 06/04/18 -RP 06/04/18 KJC-24
Carlton Oaks Dr 43 / 144 S
(!3 y 329 / 341 c 80 5 / 8 4 / 2 a 23,7 m Bl 0 / 2 o Mast re La 3 n , d 8 fi Fanita PkwyFanita l 0 l R d 2 (!5 Mission Trails Park (!4
1,252 / 745
814 / 784 C a r l t er o v n Mission Grge Rd aks Dr Ri n O o H to i rl g l Ca e l 720 / 1,159 Di Bs
n 281 / 196 Sa l 714 / 184 867 / 914 48,379 (!5 SR-125 Rmps }52 Mission Gorge Rd
!# Study Intersections
AM / PM Intersection
AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes X,XXX Average Daily Trips }125 [ I:\PROJECTS\K\KJC\KJC-24.1_EastCountyAdvancedWater\Map\IS_MND\Fig12_NearTerm_plus_Construction.indd N:\2869\Figures Source: Linscott, igure Law, and8-2 Greenspan, 2018 Date: 08/02/18 ear erm aseline + Pro ect Tra ic Volumes Near-term BaselineEast County + Construction Advanced Water Purification Traffic Project Volumes Figure 12 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 c) Would the project 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 project would not involve the construction or operation of facilities that would require changes in air traffic patterns from increased traffic levels, location or design. No impact would occur. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would involve recycled/waste water facilities and would not involve uses that are not compatible with the surrounding area.
Construction activities would require lane closures or sidewalk closures and could result in temporary traffic congestion and potential traffic hazards. Construction of the project would also cause temporary disruption of access to residences and businesses along the construction route. Consequently, portions of the affected roadway links may require detours or flagger assistance to maintain acceptable operation of the roadways, and access to all properties. Closing or altering access to individual properties and lane closures would create potential hazards; therefore, traffic hazard impacts from construction of the project would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Emergency access could be temporarily affected if roadway lane closures restrict access to the area surrounding the construction sites; therefore, emergency access impacts from construction of the project would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 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 project. Therefore, the 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 XVI.a, lane and sidewalk enclosures during construction would have the potential to decrease the performance or safety of alternative transportation facilities. Therefore, impacts from construction of the project would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts on alternative transportation to a less than significant level.
113 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Mitigation
Mitigation measure CFMP Tra-1 from the PEIR is superseded by the following mitigation measure, which incorporates specific, project-level recommendations for preparation of a traffic management plan.
ECAWP Tra-1 Traffic Management Plan. Prior to construction, the applicant shall prepare a comprehensive Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the proposed project. The TMP shall be prepared in accordance with all applicable requirements of the City and County encroachment permits and applicable City and County plans, ordinances, and policies. The applicants shall submit the TMP to City of Santee, the City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego for review, comment, and approval. The TMP may include, but not be limited to, provisions for the following:
• Scheduling the timing and duration of work to avoid the peak commuter hours of 7:00-9:00 am and 4:00-6:00 pm;
• Scheduling of daytime work on Mast Boulevard that would require lane closures will be limited to the hours between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
• Limiting construction work at the following intersections to Monday through Thursday nights between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.:
o Mast Boulevard and Carlton Hills Boulevard o Mast Boulevard and Cuyamaca Street o Mast Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue;
• Restricting construction activities around El Capitan High School during drop-off and pick-up times;
• Coordinating with public transit providers (where necessary);
• Providing off-site construction worker parking areas and shuttles for workers to/from the job site;
• Implementing standard safety practices, including installing appropriate barriers between work zones and transportation facilities, placement of appropriate signage, and use of traffic control devices;
• Coordinating with the jurisdictions prior to construction to determine specific traffic handling layouts;
• Protecting traffic by using flaggers, warning signs, lights, and barricades to guide vehicles through or around construction zones;
• Restoring roadway capacity to the extent feasible during hours when construction activities are not occurring, which could include the use of road plates or temporary paving;
• Cleaning and restoring roadways upon completion of work;
114 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
• Repair of asphalt and other road damage (e.g. curb and gutter damage) caused by construction vehicles. Documentation of original conditions and repair shall be submitted to the lead agencies for review and verification within 30 days of repair completion;
• Avoiding roads operating at LOS E or worse through the use of alternate traffic routes and construction personnel carpools and/or shuttles;
• Limiting the length of open trenches to the length allowed by County and City encroachment permits;
• Implementing construction schedules and techniques that minimize roadway closures, including the number of cross streets and side streets that may be blocked or otherwise impacted by construction activities;
• Detours for cyclists and pedestrians when bike lanes or sidewalks must be closed;
• Installing steel plates over open trenches in inactive construction areas to maintain existing bicycle and pedestrian access after construction hours;
• Implementing construction phasing or techniques to maintain access through intersections where no alternative routes are available;
• Coordinate with local schools prior to construction within close proximity of school property to ensure entryways are not blocked during peak drop off and pick up times;
• Enforcing speed limits of construction vehicles on all roads, including unpaved access roads within District property;
• Notify emergency response providers of road closures at least one week prior to closures and include the location, date, time and duration of the closure; and
• Abiding by encroachment permit conditions, which shall supersede conflicting provisions in the TMP.
115 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR), defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Discussion a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
The following discussion addresses questions XVII(a) and (b).
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. State Assembly Bill (AB) 52, effective July 1, 2015, introduced the Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) as a class of cultural resource and additional considerations relating to Native American consultation into CEQA. As defined in PRC Section 21074, TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the
116 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
CRHR or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1.P.
The District worked with the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (Viejas) to develop a Native American Sacred Resources Policy (Policy), which was adopted by the District’s Board of Directors in August 2014 and is a part of the District’s Standard Practices and Policies. The Policy establishes guidelines to be implemented by the District in connection with the planning and construction of District projects that may have potential impacts on any Native American burial site, sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine (“Sacred Resources”). The Policy allows tribes an opportunity to engage in consultation; to provide input that can avoid adverse impacts to Sacred Resources; to create a process for the tribes to make known appropriate and necessary precautions regarding potential impacts of projects on Sacred Resources; and to increase the District’s level of understanding, appreciation, and respect for Sacred Resources.
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on January 31, 2018 for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and list of Native American contacts for the project area. The NAHC indicated in a response dated February 1, 2018 that the El Cajon quadrangle is sensitive for cultural resources. A list of Tribal Contacts that can be solicited for additional information about the project area was provided with NAHC’s response. Letters were sent on March 6, 2018 to Native American representatives and interested parties identified by the NAHC. One response has been received to date from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians on March 19, 2018. The tribe requested that a Kumeyaay Cultural Monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities to inform them of any inadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts, cremation sites, or human burials. Due to the potential to encounter TCRs, impacts are conservatively assessed as potentially significant. Mitigation measure CFMP Cul-12, described above in Section V, would be implemented to reduce impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level.
XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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?
117 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 66473.7 (SB 221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Would the project 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?
The following discussion addresses questions XVIII (a), (d) and (e).
No impact. Implementation of the project would involve the expansion and construction of water and wastewater facilities. A primary purpose of the proposed project is to ensure adequate, effective, reliable, equitable and fiscally sound water and recycled water service to current and projected customers. The proposed project responds to projected growth in the District’s service areas to meet both existing and projected demand. Implementation of the proposed project would comply with applicable wastewater treatment requirements related to the proposed facilities and would not result in the need for additional new or expanded water or sewer facilities by introducing people or development to an area. No related impacts would occur.
118 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 b) Would the project 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?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project proposes the expansion and construction of water and wastewater facilities to meet existing and projected demand in the District’s WSA. Implementation of the project would not result in the need to construct additional new water or wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed project could result in potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, TCRs, geology/soils, hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, and traffic. Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project are described within this Initial Study and summarized below.
As evaluated in Section I, potential impacts related to adverse changes in existing visual character and temporary lighting during construction would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Aes-1. Impacts related to security lighting would be reduced with implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Aes-4. As evaluated in Section III, air quality impacts related to blasting would be mitigated by measure CFMP Air-1. Impacts to biological resources are evaluated in Section IV, and the following mitigation measures were identified to reduce associated impacts to a less-than-significant level: CFMP Bio-1B, CFMP Bio-1F, CFMP Bio-1H, CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Bio-1J, CFMP Bio-1K, CFMP Bio-2A, CFMP Bio-3B, CFMP Bio-3C, and ECAWP Bio-1 through ECAWP Bio-7. Impacts related to cultural and paleontological resources are evaluated in Section V, and TCRs are evaluated in Section XVII. Measures to mitigate potential impacts to these resources include ECAWP Cul-1, ECAWP Cul-2, and CFMP Pal-1. Impacts related to geologic hazards and soils were evaluated in Section VI, and mitigation measure CFMP Geo-1 was identified to reduce related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were evaluated in Section VII, and the following mitigation measures were identified to mitigate related risks: CFMP Haz-1 requires sewage pump safety features, CFMP Haz-3 requires a fire safety plan during construction, and ECAWP Haz-1 requires a Health and Safety Plan related to handling of potentially contaminated soils. Potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Hyd-1 and CFMP Hyd-2, discussed in Section IX. As evaluated in Section X, potential impacts related to local land use policies would be addressed through mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1, and potential impacts related to local and regional habitat conservation plans would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with mitigation measures related to biological resources, listed above. Construction and operation activities would have the potential to generate noise levels that exceed the noise limits of local jurisdictions were evaluated in Section XII. Implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Noi-2 through CFMP Noi-5 and ECAWP Noi-1 through ECAWP Noi-7 would ensure that construction/operation noise levels do not exceed the limits established by Santee and the County. As evaluated in Section XVII, implementation of mitigation measure ECAWO Tra-1 would require a Traffic Management Plan that would ensure consistency with local policies related to traffic. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with the proposed project to less than significant. c) Would the project 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?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially result in some modification of existing on-site drainage patterns and directions through
119 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 proposed grading and construction. The proposed project would implement mitigation measure CFMP Hyd-2, as described above in Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, to address potential effects to drainage patterns resulting from proposed facilities. Additionally, the project would comply with state and local storm water regulations, including applicable construction and post-construction BMPs. Through compliance with the existing regulations, the proposed project would not increase runoff in volumes that would exceed pre-project site conditions and would not require the construction or expansion of additional storm water drainage systems that would cause significant environmental effects. Compliance with applicable storm water regulations and implementation of PEIR mitigation measure Hyd-2 would reduce potential impacts related to storm water drainage facilities to a less-than- significant level. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The following discussion addresses questions XVIII (f) and (g).
Less than significant impact. 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. Demolition debris and construction waste associated with construction of the project would be properly handled and disposed of, in accordance with federal, state and local laws and regulations related to solid and hazardous waste. While long term operation of the project would generate some solid waste, the proposed SHERF would provide on-site treatment and conversion of solid wastes into energy in the proposed cogeneration plant. Solid waste from the SHERF would consist of Class B biosolids and would be transported to an appropriate facility to be utilized as land cover. Therefore, impacts to landfills and solid waste would be less than significant.
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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, substantially 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?
120 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Less Than Less Than Significant with Significant with Potentially Project-level CFMP PEIR Less Than Significant Mitigation Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Incorporated Impact Impact 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 project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion 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 incorporated. Refer to Section IV with regard to biological resources and to Section V with regard to cultural resources. As described in Section IV, biological resources impacts would occur to special status species and sensitive habitats; however, impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through implementation of PEIR measures CFMP Bio-1B, CFMP Bio-1F, CFMP Bio-1H, CFMP Bio 1I, CFMP Bio-1J, CFMP Bio-1K, CFMP Bio 2A, CFMP Bio-3B, CFMP Bio-3C, and project-level mitigation measures ECAWP Bio-1 through ECAWP Bio-7. As described in Section V, cultural resources impacts would occur to archaeological and historical resources; however, potential impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance with the implementation of PEIR mitigation measure CFMP Pal-1 and project-level mitigation measures ECAWP Cul-1 and ECAWP Cul-2. 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 with mitigation incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. There are no known proposed developments in the immediate vicinity of the proposed dechlorination station, inlet and facilities at Lake Jennings, or the EMG Pump Station which would contribute to cumulative impacts.
Construction of the planned Fanita Ranch development could occur simultaneously with the proposed Ray Stoyer WRF expansion and/or construction of the SHERF and AWTP facility. Noise generated by construction activities at these sites would potentially affect sensitive habitat; however, the proposed project would implement mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-4, and CFMP Noi-5 to reduce
121 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018 potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Construction of the Fanita Ranch development would also be subject to City of Santee noise limits and measures to control noise levels during construction would likely be implemented. In addition, as discussed in Section 6.2 of the CFMP PEIR, construction of cumulative development projects within the vicinity of the project location would not be likely to result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to the localized nature of noise impacts. In addition, although the Fanita Ranch project has not been constructed at the time of this analysis, the potential noise impacts to the occupants of that development have been analyzed in Section XII of this IS/MND, and the project would implement measures CFMP Noi-2, ECAWP Noi-1 through Noi-7 to reduce impacts associated with future adjacent uses.
The El Monte Sand Mining Project is currently being proposed in the unincorporated County of San Diego. The sand mining project would be located within the El Monte Valley and the mine would extend to near the ECAWP project’s easternmost boundary (i.e., where the dechlorination facility is located and where the AWP pipeline ends). The El Monte Sand Mining Project’s Draft EIR (SCH NO 2015081025) has completed public review (August 30, 2018 to October 29, 2018), but the project has yet to be approved by the County (County 2018). According to the EIR, the sand mine would operate for 12 years and may open soon after the project is approved. The sand mining project would export some of the mined sand with heavy trucks through El Monte Road, to Lake Jennings Park Road, to Mapleview Avenue and to SR 67. Therefore, these heavy trucks may be driving through at the same time as the AWP pipeline is being constructed within Mapleview Avenue and El Monte Road (the pipeline would be routed around Lake Jennings Park Road). Section XVI, Transportation, of this IS/MND identifies potentially significant traffic impacts to the intersection of Lake Jennings Park Road and El Monte Road for the AM peak hour during construction of the AWP Pipeline. Traffic on the roadway segments for El Monte Road and Mapleview Street/Lake Jennings Park Road were found to operate at an acceptable LOS during construction (including road closures). Although the sand mining project would contribute additional truck trips to roadways where the AWP pipeline would be placed, mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 would be implemented to reduce impacts to the roadways and intersection from the proposed project with consideration of cumulative projects, including the El Monte Sand Mining Project; potential provisions in the measure to lessen impacts in this area includes scheduling the timing and duration of work to avoid the peak commuter hours of 7:00-9:00 am and 4:00-6:00 pm.
The proposed project would also generate noise in these areas near the El Monte Valley. Noise generated by construction activities at these sites would potentially affect sensitive habitat; however, the proposed project would implement mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-4, and CFMP Noi-5 to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The El Monte Sand Mining Project would also be subject to County noise limits and measures to control noise levels would likely be implemented. In addition, as discussed in Section 6.2 of the CFMP PEIR, construction of cumulative development projects within the vicinity of the project location would not be likely to result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to the localized nature of noise impacts.
The City of San Diego’s Pure Water Program may route a pipeline through Santee that would run parallel along the same roadways as portions of the AWP Pipeline. As discussed in Section 6.2 of the CFMP PEIR, the project would implement mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 and the District would coordinate with the City of San Diego to minimize traffic impacts and reduce prolonged noise exposure to adjacent land uses by minimizing the potential for serial construction activities from the AWP Pipeline and the Pure Water pipeline through Santee.
122 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
Additionally, along with these projects, the proposed project could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts associated with air quality and GHG emissions and water quality. Incremental water quality impacts would be reduced through implementation of NPDES requirements and associated BMPs (mitigation measure CFMP Hyd-1). Construction air quality and GHG emissions would be incremental but temporary as they would only occur during the short-term project construction period. The project would implement mitigation measures CFMP Air-1 to minimize construction-related impacts. Operational GHG emissions would be minor, as described in Section VII.a. Therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant. 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 incorporated. The proposed project could result in potentially substantial adverse effects to human beings related to impacts from exposure to hazardous materials. However, potential impacts associated with the project would be mitigated to below a level of significance with the implementation of PEIR mitigation measures CFMP Haz-1, CFMP Haz-3, and ECAWP Haz-2, as described in Section VIII.
123 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
4.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Airport Land Use Commission 2010 Gillespie Field Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 20.
ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) 2016 Revised Preliminary Cultural Resource Study to Support the Padre Dam Municipal Water District Master Plan Update PEIR, San Diego County, California. March 9.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2008 CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing GHG Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January.
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2016 Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2018 Envirostor website. Accessed May 30, 2018. Available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2013 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September.
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2018 GeoTracker website. Accessed May 18, 2018. Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2018 Flood Map Service Center website. Accessed May 27 and October 22, 2018. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal.
Fire Engineering Magazine 1889 The San Diego (Cal.) Flume. 8 June. Electronic document, available at: https://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-1889-5/issue-23/features/the- san-diego-cal-flume.html, accessed on July 30, 2018.
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) 2018a Acoustical Analysis Report for the East County Advanced Water Purification Project. September.
2018b Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the East County Advanced Water Purification Project. September.
2018c Biological Resources Report for the East County Advanced Water Purification Project. September.
124 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) (cont.) 2018d Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment for the East County Advanced Water Purification Project. September.
Helix Water District 2018 Chet Harritt Dam Sunny Day Failure Analysis Flood Inundation Maps. January. Available at: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All- Programs/Division-of-safety-of-dams/Files/Inundation-Maps/0056-009-Chet-Harritt- Dam.pdf?la=en&hash=EC23906B3A23309AA2AC288EF6244E3F49EB2225.
Holland, R.F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame- Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2018 Data Needs Packages for the East County Advanced Water Purification project. Provided to HELIX by Timothy Waters and Corey Young of Kennedy/Jenks from March to May 2018.
2016 East County Advanced Water Purification Program Planning Study Final Report. January 27.
Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) 2018 Construction Traffic Analysis for the East County Advanced Water Purification Project. September 4.
Medlin & Associates, Inc. 2014 Noise Impact Assessment Report Vista Vineyards. April 3.
Oberbauer, T. 2008 Terrestrial Vegetation Communities in San Diego County Based on Holland’s Descriptions. SANDAG, San Diego, California.
Padre Dam Municipal Water District (District) 2017 Comprehensive Facilities Master Plan Program EIR. SCH#2015111014. May. https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/2581/Padre-Dam-Master-Plan- PEIR-FINAL
2015 Ray Stoyer Water Recycling Facility – Phase I Expansion Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH# 2015071078. July. Available at: https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/1851/Item_4_Ray-Stoyer- Expansion-IS_MND-July-2015?bidId=.
2014 California Environmental Reporting System Consolidated Emergency Response/Contingency Plan. March 5.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) 2016 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. December.
125 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration | December 2018
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2013 Transportation Forecast Information Center. Available at: http://tfic.sandag.org.
San Diego, City of 2016 Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant and Ocean Outfall Annual Reports and Summary. Available at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/plwtp_annual_2016.pdf.
San Diego, County of
2018 El Monte Sand Mining Project Draft Subsequent EIR. Available at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/ceqa/El_Monte_Public_Review.html
2008 County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements – Mineral Resources. July 30. Available at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dplu/docs/Mineral_Resources_Gui delines.pdf.
2007 County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance – Emergency Response Plans. July 30. Available at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/ pds/docs/Emergency-Response-Guidelines.pdf.
San Diego Union-Tribune 2018 Online article, “Fanita Ranch ready to roll again in Santee.” Accessed September 9, 2018. Available at: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county/sd-se- santee-fanita-20170905-story.html.
Santee, City of 2003 General Plan 2020. August.
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code sections 21083, 21083.05.
Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.5, 21083.3, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.
126 Appendix A Project Information Summary Tables PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION Earthwork Quantities Construction Timing Construction Equipment (per day) Material Delivery Truck Trips Worker Trips Vendor Trips ACTIVITIES
Description Demolition Import/Fill Export/ Start Date End Date Total 10-wheel Mechanics Electrician Tractor/ Fork Lift Crane Excavator Total Truck Peak Daily Avgerage Total Peak Daily Avgerage Peak Avgerage Quantities (cubic yards) Excavation Duration Dump Truck Truck/Flatbed Truck Loader/ Trips Truck Trips Daily Truck Workers Worker Daily Worker Daily Daily (square feet) (cubic yards) (days) Truck Backhoe Trips by Task Trips Trips Vendor Vendor Trips Trips Demolition 700 - 45 11/01/2022 12/01/2022 23 0.2 0.5 0.4 1 1 3 1 1 8 8 8 16 10 Construction - 20 - 12/02/2022 10/31/2023 238 1 1 0.3 0.5 0.25 0.15 32 10 6 10 16 10
Square Footage of Structures to be Square Footage of Proposed Demolished Structures to be Constructed
Facility Structure (sqft) Facility Structure (sqft)
Pump House - Pump House -
Equipment Pads Outside Equipment Pads of Pump Outside of Pump House for House for Odor Influent - Influent Odor Control, - Control, Generator, Pump Pump Generator, Surge Tank, Meter Station Station Surge Tank, Vault Pad Meter Vault Pad Asphalt fot Asphalt fot New New Chemical Chemical Storage and 700 700 Storage and Feed Area Feed Area
Existing Projected OPERATION AND Existing Maintenance Projected Maintenance Projected Chemical Electricity Electricity Operation Equipment Trips Trips Delivery Trips MAINENTANCE Usage Usage Total 0.75 HP 2 HP Odor 3 HP 500 HP High 400 HP Low Operating 1,000 kW, 1.5 HP Roof 5 HP Air Chemical 3 HP Odor Control Roof Lift Lift 10 HP 3 HP Air 1.4 HP Sluice Load (HP) Facility per week per year per week per year per week per year (kWh/year) (kWh/year) 675 HP Ventilator Condition Lighting Metering Control Fans Recirculation Ventilator Wastewater Wastewater Grinders Compressor Gates Generator (exhaust) ing Unit Pumps Pump (intake) Pump Pumps 30 HP Influent Pump Station 14 728 22 1300 1 14 90,800 2,450,000 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 960 total Ray Stoyer WRF Expansion and SHERF
PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION Net Soil Import & Material Delivery and Haul Truck Construction Timing Construction Equipment (per day) Worker Trips Vendor Trips ACTIVITIES Export Trips Avgerage Avgerage Avgerage Demolition Export Semi- 10-wheel Tractor/ Paving/ Total Peak Daily Import (cubic Total Duration Concrete Total Truck Peak Daily Daily Daily Peak Daily Daily Description Quantities (cubic Start Date End Date Tractor Dump Water Pull Loader/ Scraper Dozer Roller Water Truck Fork Lift Crane Generator Excavator Compact Striping Pump Compressor Baker Tanks Workers by Worker yards) (days) Saw Trips Truck Trips Truck Worker Vendor Trips Vendor (square feet) yards) Trailer Truck Backhoe or Machine Task Trips Trips Trips Trips Ray Stoyer WRF Demolition 9,700 10/01/2021 12/02/2021 45 2 1 2 3 44 12 8 20 60 40 Ray Stoyer WRF - - 76,370 12/03/2021 02/01/2022 43 2 1 1 1 0 12 8 10 60 40 Site Preparation/Grading Ray Stoyer WRF Construction - 02/03/2022 12/31/2024 759 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 7,175 150 8 27 68 45 SHERF Demolition 26,300 10/01/2021 12/02/2021 45 2 1 2 3 120 48 5 32 48 20 9 6 SHERF Grading - - 170 12/03/2021 01/03/2022 22 1 1 1 1 1 11 48 5 32 48 8 SHERF Phase 1 Construction - 01/04/2022 12/01/2025 1,020 1 4 1 1 2 3 421 10 5 27 41 27 9 6
Square Footage of Structures to be Demolished
Facility Structure Sq ft
Workshop Building 500 Return Activated Sludge and Froth Spray Pump 1,300 Ray Station Soyer Paving east of Secondary WRF 7,400 Clarifiers Chlorine Neitralization 500 Facility Clearwell 1,000 Concrete Slabs 7,800 SHERF Concrete Sidewalks 2,600 Asphalt Parking Areas 14,900 Total 36,000
Square Footage of Proposed Structures to be Constructed
Facility Structure Sq ft
Headworks Building 7,400 Odor Control Building 4,950 Equalization Basin 9,880 GMF Filters 7,050 Denitrifying Filter 300 Primary Clarifiers 9,500 Blower Building 2,800 Ray BioReactors 61,800 Soyer Secondary Clarifiers 25,750 WRF Classifying Selector 1,200 AWP PS 1,500 Tertiary Influent PS 400 Maintenance/Ops Buildings 9,700 Chemical Facilities 5,700 Chlorine Contact Tanks 5,250 Additional Generator Bldg 900 Electrical Buildings 4,200 Solids Thickening and 13,200 Dewatering Building Digesters 17,100 Digester Control Building 4,500 High Strength Waste 3,900 SHERF Receiving Station Gas Conditioning and 3,000 Cogeneration Building Waste Gas Burner 200 Product Water Pump 400 Station Total 200,580
Existing Projected OPERATION AND Projected Maintenance Projected Chemical Electricity Electricity Operation Equipment (total units) Trips Truck Deliveries Total MAINENTANCE Usage Usage Operating 100 kW, 750 kW, 1,000 kW, 250 to 300 HP 0.75 to 3 HP 0.5 to 10 15 to 30 HP 40 to 60 HP 100 HP 75 HP Filter 40 to 60 HP Lighting and Load (HP) Phase Facility per week per year per week per year (kWh/year) (kWh/year) 200 HP 250 HP 1,000 HP Aeration Anoxic Zone HP Pumps Pumps Pumps Pump Blowers Foul Air Fans Instrumentation Generator Generator Generator Blowers Mixers
Ray Stoyer WRF 20 1,040 20 1,040 1,900,800 9,283,000 2 28 28 6 4 10 3 5 172 HP total 1,420
Projected OPERATION AND Projected Maintenance Total Operating Electricity Operation Equipment (total units) Trips Load (HP) MAINENTANCE Usage 100 kW, 200 1 HP Bridge 0.5 to 10 HP 15 to 30 HP 50 HP 1 HP 0.5 to 3 HP 10 HP 7 to 8 HP 0.5 to 1 HP 5 HP 75 HP Gas 5 HP 10 HP Lighting and Phase Facility per week per year (kWh/year) HP Crane 5 HP HVAC 5 HP Boiler 1 HP Blower 3 HP Conveyor Pumps Pumps Pump Systems Valves Valve Units HVAC Scrubber Compressor Chiller Radiator Instrumentation Generator Trolley/Hoist
SHERF 91 4,732 2,677,000 12 6 3 6 5 7 6 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 50 HP total 570 AWTP Facility
PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION Net Soil Import & Export Construction Timing Construction Equipment (per day) Material Delivery Truck Trips Worker Trips Vendor Trips ACTIVITIES
Peak Avgerage Avgerage Export Semi- Tractor/ Total Total Peak Daily Import (cubic Total Duration Baker Peak Daily Avgerage Daily Daily Daily Daily Description (cubic Start Date End Date Tractor Scraper Dozer Loader/ Compactor Water Truck Fork Lift Crane Generator Excavator Pump Truck Workers Vendor yards) (days) Tanks Truck Trips Truck Trips Worker Worker Vendor yards) Trailer Backhoe Trips by Task Trips Trips Trips Trips AWP Site Prep/Grading 0 13,000 10/01/2021 12/02/2021 45 1 1 1 1 1 1,732 150 5 6 11 7 AWP Building Construction 12/03/2021 12/04/2024 784 2 2 5 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 1,732 150 5 8 11 7
Square Footage of Proposed Structures to be Constructed
Facility Structure Sq Ft
Visitor Center 12,765 Process Building 51,050 Proposed R&D Building 5,800 Secondary RO Ion Exchange 1,000 Chemical Storage Area 8,250 Chemical Building 2,500 Lime Storage and Feed Area 2,500
CO2 Storage and Feed Area 1,550 Maintenance Building 1,500 Advanced Electrical Building 800 Water MF Transfer Tanks 2,000 Treatment RO Feed Tanks 2,000 Plant RO Flush Tank 750
(AWTP) Primary CO2 Injection Tank 300 Primary Line Injection Tank 900 Product Water Box 214 Plant Water HP Tank 10
Secondary CO2 Injection Tank 20 Secondary Lime Injection Tank 20 Overflow Tank 900 Waste Equalization Pump Station 700 Product Water Pump Station 400 Total 95,900
Projected Maintenance Projected Operation Equipment (total units) OPERATION AND MAINENTANCE Trips Electricity Usage Total Operating Load (HP) 5 to 10 HP 20 to 50 HP 60 to 200 250 to 450 HP 10 HP Air 60 HP Lighting and Facility per week per year (kWh/year) 1 HP Blower Pump Pump HP Pump Pump Compressor Blower Instrumentation
AWTP 25 1,300 26,878,000 4 25 20 11 2 1 2 500 HP total 5,490 AWP Pipeline and Lake Jennings Inlet
CONSTRUCTION Earthwork Quantities Construction Timing Construction Equipment (per day) Material Delivery Truck Trips Worker Trips Vendor Trips
Description Demolition Import/Fill Export/ Start Date End Date Total Semi- 10-wheel Flatbed Truck Traffic Tractor/ Concrete Auger Roller Water Street Fork Lift Drill Rig Crane Genera Excavator Concrete Welding Paving/ Pump Winch Total Peak Daily Avgerage Total Peak Avgerage Peak Avgerage Quantities (cubic Excavation Duration Tractor Trailer Dump Truck Control Loader/ Boom Truck Sweeper tor Saw Machine Striping Truck Truck Trips Daily Truck Workers Daily Daily Daily Daily (square feet) yards) (cubic yards) (days) Truck Backhoe Truck Machine Trips Trips by Task Worker Worker Vendor Vendor Trips Trips Trips Trips Site Preparation - - - 07/01/2021 7/21/2021 21 0.5 0.25 0.5 5 Pipeline Dewatering and - - - 07/01/2021 09/30/2022 327 1 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 3 5 Utility Relocations Pavement Removal and 3,000 - - 07/01/2021 09/30/2022 327 2 2 2 2 1 2445 10 Pipeline Excavation Pipe Installation and Backfill - 12,250 20,000 07/01/2021 09/30/2022 327 4 2 2 1 2 1100 16 Jacking and Receiving Pit; Pipe Casing and Carrier Pipe - - - 07/01/2021 09/30/2021 66 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5
Horizontal Directional Drill (incl. Mobilization/ - - - 02/01/2022 05/02/2022 65 1 1 0.25 1 1 1 1 0.5 5 Demobilization) Fuse/Weld Pipe - - - 04/01/2022 05/31/2022 43 1 1 1 0.5 5 Pipe Supports for Above - - - 06/01/2022 07/02/2022 23 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 33 22 4 69 46 12 8 Ground Pipe Rip Rap Rock Feature at Lake - - - 07/03/2022 08/05/2022 25 1.5 0.25 1 0.5 0.5 140 5 Jennings Buildings and Retaining Wall - 300 360 07/03/2022 10/07/2022 70 0.15 0.15 0.15 35 4 at Lake Jennings Generator, Electrical, Aeration Blowers, and Air Supply at - - - 10/24/2022 11/07/2022 11 0.15 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1 10 4 Lake Jennings Pressure Test Pipeline and - - - 07/03/2022 11/01/2022 87 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 50 4 Valve Installation Place Aggregate Base, Pave, - 9,525 - 10/01/2022 02/17/2023 100 2 2 5 2 2 1620 12 and Restripe Punchlist Items/Project Closeout - - - 2/18/2023 4/18/2023 60
Square Footage of Proposed Structures to be AWP Pipeline Construction Constructed Methods
Method Length (feet) Facility Structure (sqft) Open Cut 49,000 Aeration Blower Building and 800 Lake Concrete Pad HDD 2,200 Jennings Emergency Generator 200 Facility Concrete Pad/Containment Jack & Bore 250 Retaining Wall 100 Above-grade 2600 Float and Sink 2,200
Projected Projected Total OPERATION AND Operation Equipment (total Maintenance Electricity Operating units) MAINENTANCE Trips Usage Load Facility 200 HP 250 kW (per year) (kWh/year) Aeration Emergency HP Blower Generator AWP Pipeline 4 0 0 0 - Lake Jennings Inlet 8 1,307,000 2 1 200 Dechlorination Station
PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION Earthwork Quantities Construction Timing Construction Equipment (per day) Material Delivery Truck Trips Worker Trips Vendor Trips ACTIVITIES Description Demolition Import/Fill Export/ Start Date End Date Total Semi- Water Truck Compactor Tractor/ Grader Crane Generator Roller Paving Excavator Total Peak Average Total Peak Average Peak Average Quantities (cubic Excavation (cubic Duration Tractor Loader/ Machine Truck Daily Daily Workers Daily Daily Daily Daily (square yards) yards) Trailer Backhoe Trips Truck Truck by Task Worker Worker Vendor Vendor feet) Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Demolish Existing Pump 10/01/2022 10/14/2022 3,000 - - Station and Piping 10 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 175 50 5 5 3 Grade Site - - 400 10/18/2022 10/24/2022 5 Site Construction - 362 - 10/24/2022 02/06/2023 76 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7
Square Footage of Structures to be Demolished
Facility Structure (sqft) Dechlorination El Monte Pump Station 3,000 Station
Square Footage of Proposed Structures to be
Facility Structure (sqft) Dechlorination Dechlorination Station 700 Station
Projected Total OPERATION AND Projected Maintenance Projected Chemical Delivery Electricity Operation Equipment (total units) Operating Trips Trips MAINENTANCE Usage Load 5 HP 0.03 HP Lighting and Facility per week per year per week per year (kWh/year) HVAC Metering HP Instrumentation Blower Pumps
Dechlorination Station 1 52 0.25 13 25,400 1 2 0.5 HP total 6 East Mission Gorge (EMG) Pump Station, Force Main, Bypass Pipeline, and Lift Station
PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Earthwork Quantities Construction Timing Construction Equipment (per day) Material Delivery Truck Trips Worker Trips Vendor Trips
Facility Description Demolition Import/Fill Export/ Start Date End Date Total Semi- 10-wheel Flatbed Truck Traffic Tractor/ Electrician Auger Compactor Roller Water Street Fork Lift Drill Rig Crane Generator Excavator Concrete Welding Paving/Str Pump Winch Total Peak Avgerage Total Peak Avgerage Peak Avgerage Quantities (cubic Excavation Duration Tractor Trailer Dump Truck Control Truck Loader/ Truck Truck Sweeper Saw Machine iping Truck Daily Daily Workers Daily Daily Daily Daily (square feet) yards) (cubic Backhoe Machine Trips Truck Truck by Task Worker Worker Vendor Vendor yards) Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips Pipeline Dewater and Utility 10/18/2022 06/18/2024 - 436 1 1 0.25 0.5 1.25 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 3 5 Relocations Pavement Removal and 10/18/2022 04/16/2024 - 391 1 0.5 1 0.25 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 5 Pipeline Excavation Pipeline Installation and 10/18/2022 07/16/2024 - 456 2 1 2 1 1 8 Backfill Horizontal Directional Drill - 06/1/2023 09/01/2023 45 1 1 0.25 1 1 1 1 0.5 4 EMG Force Main 11,440 16,000 3,630 33 22 35 23 8 5 Fuse Pipe - 09/04/2023 09/18/2023 11 1 1 1 0.5 5 Connect to EMG Pump 07/02/2024 07/15/2024 - 10 0.5 0.25 0.25 1 0.5 0.75 4 Station Pressure Test and Valve 07/16/2024 08/20/2024 - 26 0.5 0.5 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 4 Installation Place Aggregate Base, 08/21/2024 10/01/2024 - 30 2 1 2 1 1 7 Pave, and Restripe Dewatering - 09/4/2023 06/3/2024 273 1 1 1 Pavement Removal and 09/04/2023 10/16/2023 - 31 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 4 Pipeline Excavation Pipe Installation and Backfill 10/17/2023 06/03/2024 - 165 1 1 1 1 1 8 Residuals Bypass Horizontal Directional Drill - 09/04/2023 11/03/2023 45 1 1 0.25 1 1 1 1 0.5 4 System Pipeline Fuse Pipe - 728 560 11/06/2023 11/20/2023 11 1 1 1 0.5 5 150 17 11 35 23 8 5 Connect Downstream - 11/21/2023 01/01/2024 30 0.5 0.25 0.25 1 0.25 0.75 4 Pressure Test - 07/01/2024 08/02/2024 25 0.5 0.25 0.25 3 Aggregate Base, Pave, and 08/05/2024 10/04/2024 - 45 2 1 2 1 0.5 1 7 Restripe Residuals Bypass Dewatering - 11/06/2023 05/03/2024 130 1 1 1 System Lift Station Construction - 11/06/2023 05/03/2024 130 0.15 0.3 0.15 0.5 0.25 0.15 5 Demolition 3,000 10/01/2022 10/17/2022 11 0.2 0.5 0.4 1 1 4 EMG Pump Station 95 250 50 12 8 17 11 5 3 Construction - 10/18/2022 10/01/2024 511 1 0.3 1 0.5 1 0.15 5
Square Footage of Proposed Structures to EMG Force Main Residual Bypass Pipeline Square Footage of Structures to be Demolished be Constructed Construction Methods Construction Methods
Method Length (feet) Method Length (feet) Facility Structure (sqft) Facility Structure (sqft) Open Cut 14,700 Open Cut 3,000 EMG Flow Metering Vault 600 Flow Metering Vault 600 Trenchless HDD 3,500 Trenchless HDD 3,500 Pump Influent Manhole 200 Influent Manhole 200 Sliplining 8800 Station Diversion Structure 200 Diversion Structure 200 Emergency EMG Generator/Sound 1,100 Pump Attenuated Enclosure Station Pads Load Bank Pads 40 EMG Force Main 0 EMG Bypass Pipeline 50 Lift Station
Existing Total OPERATION AND Projected Maintenance Projected Chemical Projected Existing Maintenance Trips Existing Chemical Delivery Trips Electricity Operation Equipment (total units) Operating Trips Delivery Trips Electricity Usage MAINENTANCE Usage Load Facility 60 HP 5 to 10 2 HP 3 HP Air 0.75 HP 0.75 to 2 0.75 to 3 HP 65 HP 600 HP 3 HP Bar 5 HP Bridge Odor HP Make- 1,500 kW per week per year per week per year per month per year per month per year (kWh/year) (kWh/year) Propeller Compress Sluice HP Roof Lighting HP Pump Pump Pump Screens Crane Control Up Air Generator Fan or Gates Ventilator Fan Unit EMG Force Main 0 0 - 6 ------EMG Bypass Pipeline and Lift 0 0 - 54 - - - - 0 346,000 - 2 ------65 Station EMG Pump Station 5 260 22 1,560 2 24 to 25 1 14 1,541,000 7,471,000 6 4 2 2 2 2 1 6 3 2 34 HP total 2 1,403 Number of Generator
Generators/Phase Sizing (HP) Influent Pump Station 1 1,000 Mission Gorge Pump 2 1,500 Station & FM 2 750 Ray Stoyer WRF 2 1000 Solids Handling and 1 Sludge 100 Lake Jennings 1 250 Appendix H NOI and Proof of Publication
Appendix I Responses to Comments COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT IS/MND AND RESPONSES
All comment letters received on the Draft East County Advanced Water Purification Project (ECAWP) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in response to a 30-day public review period have been organized by agency, organization, and individual according to date received. The District received 21 comment letters on the Draft IS/MND during the public review period that began on September 14, 2018 and closed on October 15, 2018. Each of the comment letters received during the public comment period was alphabetically and numerically coded to facilitate identification and tracking (Table RTC-1). The District also hosted two public meetings for the project on September 27, 2018 and October 2, 2018. Oral comments received during public meetings included concerns with the safety of the treated water, potential impacts to biological resources, construction noise issues, and questions regarding the public review process for the project. Two written comments were received during those meetings and are listed in Table RTC-2. Members of the public that expressed concerns orally at the public meeting also submitted written comment letters (see letters K and S).
The letters are divided into individual comments, with each comment containing a single theme, issue, or concern. Individual comments and the responses to them were assigned corresponding numbers. The comment number consists of two parts. The first part is the letter of the document and the second is the number of the comment. Thus, Comment A-1 is the first comment (comment #1) of comment letter A. To aid readers, comments have been reproduced in this document together with corresponding responses on the same page.
TABLE RTC-1 Comment Letters Received During Public Review Letter Commenter Date State Agencies A Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse October 16, 2018 B Jacob Armstrong, Branch Chief, Local Development and October 12, 2018 Intergovernmental Review Branch, Caltrans C Tessa Lenz, Environmental Scientist, State Water Resources Control October 15, 2018 Board Local Agencies D Eric Lardy, Chief (Acting), Advance Planning Division, Planning & October 15, 2018 Development Services, County of San Diego E Steven Miller, Senior Civil Engineer, Development Services, City of October 15, 2018 Santee F Brian Olney, Director of Water Quality and System Operations, Helix October 15, 2018 Water District Organizations G Roger Bisson, President, Blossom Valley Trails Alliance October 12, 2018 H James W. Royle, Jr., Chairperson, Environmental Review Committee, October 14, 2018 San Diego Archaeological Society, Inc. I Billy Ortiz, Board Member, Lakeside Historical Society October 15, 2018 J Bruce Coons, Executive Director, Save Our Heritage Organisation October 15, 2018 K Van Collinsworth, Director, Preserve Wild Santee and Conservation October 15, 2018 Coordinator, California Chaparral Institute
RTC-1 TABLE RTC-1 Comment Letters Received During Public Review Letter Commenter Date Individuals L Christie Ranney October 12, 2018 M Paula Everhart October 12, 2018 N Gary E. Mitrovich October 14, 2018 O1 Janis Shackelford October 15, 2018 O2 Janis Shackelford October 15, 2018 P Maryanne Vancio October 15, 2018 Q Paul Eady October 15, 2018 R Peter Larsen October 15, 2018 S Sandy Schielke October 15, 2018 T Janet Garvin October 4, 2018
RTC-2 Comments Received at October 2, 2018 Public Meeting Letter Commenter Date U Kathleen C. Martin and Fred L. Martin October 2, 2018 V Anonymous October 2, 2018
RTC-2 COMMENTS RESPONSES
A-1 This comment letter confirms that the Draft IS/MND was distributed to various state agencies. Two state agencies, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), provided comment letters; these letters, and responses to them, are included as Letters B and C. The Padre Dam Municipal Water District (District) has complied with statutory noticing obligations for documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A-1
RTC-3 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-4 COMMENTS RESPONSES
B-1 The project would need to obtain an Encroachment Permit (California Streets and Highways Code Sections 660 et seq.) from Caltrans, as described in Table 3 of the Draft MND. During the encroachment permit process, the Final IS/MND and corresponding technical studies will be provided to Caltrans.
B-1
RTC-5 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-6 COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-1 The introductory pages of the letter describe the requirements that the District would need to comply with as part of the application for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) financing. Because the CWSRF Program is partially funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it requires additional environmental documentation that demonstrates compliance with federal regulations, including the Federal Endangered Species Act, Section 7 clearance from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and the federal Clean Air Act.
The District appreciates the information provided by the SWRCB regarding the CWSRF Program. The air quality technical report, biological resources technical C-1 letter, and cultural resource inventory and assessment for the project (attached as Appendices B, C, and D, respectively) include a discussion of the federal requirements mentioned in the letter. The District would work with the SWRCB on these and any additional requirements needed as part of the CWSRF Program as appropriate.
RTC-7 COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-1 cont.
RTC-8 COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-1 cont.
C-2 C-2 Impacts to sensitive natural communities would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Bio-2A. In response to this comment, the text on page 39 of the Final IS/MND has been C-3 revised as follows (as indicated by underlined text):
Therefore, impacts on sensitive natural communities from the inlet would be
considered potentially significant. This impact would be mitigated to less than
significant with implementation of CFMP Bio-2A, which would mitigate the C-4 impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and freshwater marsh through
compensation of habitat loss in accordance with the mitigation ratios provided in
the mitigation measure.
C-3 The correct value for the total area of non-native grassland impacts is 1.3 acres C-5 (0.6 acre of temporary impacts plus 0.7 acre of permanent impacts). Table 6,
Impacts to Vegetation Communities within the Disturbance Area, has been revised
in the Final IS/MND to reflect the corrected total. Note that the corresponding C-6 table in the Biological Resources Technical Letter (Table 4 within Appendix C of the IS/MND) includes the correct total and does not need to be revised. C-7 C-4 The comment requests that the PEIR Mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1K be updated to provide additional details on contractor training. In response to this comment, C-8 measure CFMP Bio-1K on page 45 of the Final IS/MND (and in Appendix C) has been revised as follows:
RTC-9 COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-4 (cont.)
CFMP Bio-1K Contractor Training. The District shall retain a qualified biologist to provide environmental awareness training by attending pre-construction meetings to inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or minimization requirements. This will also include training for new crewmembers who join the project crew after construction begins. The training shall educate crews on the 12 special status species with high potential to occur in the project area. The crews will be informed to not interfere with these species if seen, and to contact the qualified biologist immediately for additional avoidance and minimization measures.
These revisions to mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1K do not reduce the effectiveness of the measure, which already reduced potential impacts to a less than significant level. Further, these revisions do not result in new environmental impacts on their own, given that they involve only the subject matter of the construction crew training program. Therefore, no recirculation of the IS/MND is required as a result of this revision.
C-5 The reference in ECAWP Bio-2 to least Bell’s vireo was in error, as the measure is for coastal California gnatcatcher. Measure ECAWP Bio-2 has been edited in the Final IS/MND to remove the reference to least Bell’s vireo. The measure relevant to least Bell’s vireo is ECAWP Bio-5. In response to this comment, mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-5 have been revised in the Final IS/MND (and in Appendix C) as follows:
ECAWP Bio-2 Pre-construction Gnatcatcher Surveys. If construction activities are planned to occur during the least Bell’s vireo coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 15 to September 15), then prior to initiating construction activities within 500 feet of off-site coastal California gnatcatcher locations depicted on Figures 8a, 8b, 8j, 8i, 8k, and 8l, and 8m of Appendix C, the District shall retain a USFWS-permitted biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys to confirm the presence or absence of the species. The surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days prior to project construction, and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. If gnatcatchers are confirmed to be absent within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then no additional measures shall be required. If gnatcatchers are confirmed to be present, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-3.
RTC-10 COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-5 (cont.)
ECAWP Bio-5 Pre-construction Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys. If construction activities are planned to occur during the least Bell’s vireo breeding season (March 15 to September 15), then prior to initiating construction activities within 500 feet of off-site vireo locations depicted on Figures 8a, 8b, 8i, 8k and 8l of Appendix C, or in any project construction areas within 500 feet of least Bell’s vireo critical habitat, the District shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre- construction surveys to confirm the presence or absence of the species. The surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days prior to project construction, and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. If vireos are confirmed to be absent within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then no additional measures shall be required. If vireo are confirmed to be present, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-6.
Some figures on both measures were erroneously listed as figures displaying gnatcatcher or vireo locations; therefore, revisions were made to remove the figures from the mitigation measures. These revisions to mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-2 and ECAWP Bio-5 do not reduce the effectiveness of either measure, which already reduced potential impacts to a less than significant level. Further, these revisions do not result in new environmental impacts on their own, given that they result in the measure being even more protective of existing sensitive species. Therefore, no recirculation of the IS/MND is required as a result of these revisions.
C-6 These investigations have not been completed as of publication of the Final IS/MND. They will be completed prior to approval of final project design and would be provided to the SWRCB when they are competed. This would not be deferral of mitigation, as mitigation measures CFMP Hyd-1 and CFMP Hyd-2 contain timing requirements and performance standards that would be consistent with completing the studies prior to approval of final project design.
RTC-11 COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-7 As described on page 37 of the IS/MND under the subheading of Other Special- Status Animals, impacts to the 12 special-status animal species mentioned in the comment would be limited to temporary displacement of individuals during project construction; in addition, based on the quality and size of the habitat that would be impacted, the areas are not expected to support locally or regionally significant populations of these non-listed sensitive species. Therefore, impacts to these species are considered to be less than significant and a project-specific mitigation measure is not required. However, in response to this comment, mitigation measure Bio-1H will be modified in the Final IS/MND (and in Appendix C) as follows:
CFMP Bio-1H Orange Construction Fencing and Construction Monitoring. The District shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities and 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. Once fencing is installed, the District and qualified biologist shall determine the need for additional inspections and monitoring activities throughout the duration of construction. If determined necessary by the District and qualified biologist, monitoring shall include inspection of construction work areas, including staging and storage areas, to confirm that activities are kept within the approved limits and that Best Management Practices are in place to prevent incidental animal entrapment and burrow and nest establishment within equipment and staged materials. Monitoring shall also include pre-activity surveys of construction and staging areas each morning on active construction sites to confirm special-status species remain absent from work areas. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, or if a trapped animal or burrow or nest is found, work in the affected areas shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified by the District and qualified biologist. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the District prior to and concurrent with construction.
RTC-12 COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-7 As described on page 37 of the IS/MND under the subheading of Other Special- Status Animals, impacts to the 12 special-status animal species mentioned in the comment would be limited to temporary displacement of individuals during project construction; in addition, based on the quality and size of the habitat that would be impacted, the areas are not expected to support locally or regionally significant populations of these non-listed sensitive species. Therefore, impacts to these species are considered to be less than significant and a project-specific mitigation measure is not required. However, in response to this comment, mitigation measure Bio-1H will be modified in the Final IS/MND (and in Appendix C) as follows:
CFMP Bio-1H Orange Construction Fencing and Construction Monitoring. The District shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities and 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. Once fencing is installed, the District and qualified biologist shall determine the need for additional inspections and monitoring activities throughout the duration of construction. If determined necessary by the District and qualified biologist, monitoring shall include inspection of construction work areas, including staging and storage areas, to confirm that activities are kept within the approved limits and that Best Management Practices are in place to prevent incidental animal entrapment and burrow and nest establishment within equipment and staged materials. Monitoring shall also include pre-activity surveys of construction and staging areas each morning on active construction sites to confirm special-status species remain absent from work areas. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, or if a trapped animal or burrow or nest is found, work in the affected areas shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified by the District and qualified biologist. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the District prior to and concurrent with construction.
RTC-13 COMMENTS RESPONSES
C-7 (cont.)
This revision to mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1H does not reduce the effectiveness of the measure, which already reduced potential impacts to a less than significant level. Further, this revision does not result in new environmental impacts of its own, given that it involves providing more biological construction surveys. Therefore, no recirculation of the IS/MND is required as a result of this C-9 revision.
C-8 In response to this comment, the text on page 23 of Appendix C has been revised to the following:
Rare plant surveys completed in 2018 determined the presence of two four special- status plant species within the potential disturbance limits of the project: ashy spike moss, San Diego County viguiera, delicate clarkia, San Diego goldenstar.
This revision does not present new information indicating a new environmental impact, because it is clear from the original test that four special status plant species were found to be present within the project disturbance limit.
C-9 The documents listed in the comment would be provided in the application package to be submitted to the SWRCB, and the board will be put on future noticing lists for the project.
RTC-14 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-15 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-16 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-17 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-18 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-19 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-1 The District appreciates the County’s input on the project. Responses to specific D-1 topics are addressed below.
D-2 This comment notes that the project must ensure compliance with all requirements of the County of San Diego’s Flood Damage Protection Ordinance D-2 and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regulations.
As described in Section IX.h, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND, the
project does not propose above-ground structures within 100-year flood hazard D-3 areas. The East Mission Gorge (EMG) force main would cross the San Diego River
north of the EMG Pump Station, and the Advanced Water Purification (AWP)
Pipeline would cross the San Diego River west of Lakeside Avenue; however, once
installed, the pipelines would be underground and would not impede flows. D-4 Additionally, construction and operation of the project would be required to
comply with existing regulations, such as FEMA regulations and those listed in
Section IX.a that would reduce the likelihood of alterations in drainage to result in flooding impacts. The District will coordinate with the County Flood Control District regarding installation of pipelines within mapped San Diego River floodplains.
RTC-20 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-2 (cont.)
In response to this comment, the following clarification has been added to the discussion in Section IX.h of the IS/MND (as indicated in underlined text).
Additionally, construction and operation of the project would be required to comply with existing regulations, such as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and those listed in Section IX.a, that would reduce the likelihood of alterations in drainage to result in flooding impacts.
D-3 As described in Section IX.h, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND, the project does not propose above-ground structures within 100-year flood hazard areas and the project would not change the water surface elevation or lines of inundation. The “no-rise” certification has been added to Table 3, Anticipated Regulatory Permits and Approvals, of the Final IS/MND as follows:
County of San Diego “No rise” certification for work performed within mapped floodways (San Diego County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Section 811.506)
RTC-21 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-4 Construction best management practices (BMPs) related to vector control have been added to Section 2.0, Project Description, under the “Construction D-4 Equipment and Sequencing” heading on page 9 of the Final IS/MND, as shown cont. below:
Additionally, in accordance with the County’s Vector Control Program, the project would: D-5
• Be constructed in a manner to minimize standing water resulting from
construction-related depressions created by grading activities and vehicle
tires, tree pits, and landscaping. D-6
• Ensure BMPs and drainage areas do not create a potential mosquito breeding
source (an area capable of holding at least a half-inch of water for more than
96 hours). D-7
Note that following the County’s vector control guidelines was already a
requirement that the project would have to meet. Therefore, this modification D-8 would not change the conclusion or significance determination in the IS/MND.
D-5 As noted in response D-4, the District will take steps to avoid any potential vector breeding nuisance.
D-6 The comment provides information on the County’s Guidelines for Determining D-9 Significance for Vectors and does not address the adequacy or accuracy of information provided in the IS/MND. The information contained in the comment has been noted.
D-7 As described in Section VIII.d, mitigation measure ECAWP Haz-1 would reduce impacts from excavation activities in contaminated soils to a less than significant D-10 level through a Community Health and Safety Plan, and no additions to the measure are necessary for a less than significant conclusion. However, in response to the recommendation in this comment, the following text has been added to mitigation measure ECAWP Haz-1 in the Final IS/MND requiring a Soil Management Plan, as follows (as indicated by underlined text):
RTC-22 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-7 (cont.)
In response to this comment, the following clarification has been added to the discussion in Section IX.h of the IS/MND (as indicated in underlined text).
ECAWP Haz-1 Health and Safety Plan for Handling of Contaminated Soils. Prior to any ground-disturbing activity related to pipeline installation within the District’s Operations Yard or within 50 feet of a documented hazardous materials site in Mast Boulevard, the contractor shall develop a Community Health & Safety Plan and Soil Management Plan for the safe handling of contaminated soils, which shall be reviewed and approved by the San Diego County DEH. Typical remedial measures for contaminated soils may include efforts such as removal and proper disposal of contaminated materials, or on-site treatment and reuse, if applicable. The construction contract will require the general contractor or the subcontractor performing excavation work to have a California-issued Hazardous Substance Removal “HAZ” Certification.
These revisions to mitigation measure ECAWP Haz-1 do not reduce the effectiveness of the measure, which already reduced potential impacts to a less than significant level. Further, these revisions do not result in new environmental impacts on their own. Therefore, no recirculation of the IS/MND is required as a result of this revision.
D-8 The Mobile Service Station at 9750 Magnolia Avenue has been added to the discussion in Section VIII.d of the Final IS/MND. The One Stop Auto site is already included in Table 11; however, this table has been updated to include the Mobile Service Station at 9750 Magnolia Avenue. As described in Section VIII.d, mitigation measure ECAWP Haz-1 would reduce impacts from excavation activities in contaminated soils to a less than significant level through a Community Health and Safety Plan, and no additions to the measure are necessary. However, in response to the recommendation of this comment, mitigation measure ECAWP Haz-1 has been modified to require Department of Environmental Health- (DEH) approved Community Health & Safety and Soil Management Plans prior to any ground-disturbing activity 50 feet of a documented hazardous materials site in Mast Boulevard, as described under response D-7.
RTC-23 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-8 (cont.)
The following text has been added to the second paragraph under Section VIII.d on page 68:
According to monitoring reports, reclamation has been completed but storm water BMPs are still being implemented at the site. A Circle K/Exxon Mobil gas station located at the intersection of Magnolia Avenue and Mast Boulevard is listed as an open LUST cleanup site for a leak that was identified in 1997. Cleanup activities included excavation and removal of contaminated soils as well as extraction and testing using 18 monitoring wells. An addendum to the Correction Action Plan was submitted in June 2018 which recommended natural attenuation of the remaining petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil, and the County has issued their final concurrence with this approach (SWRCB 2018).
The following text has been added to the second paragraph on page 69:
Excavation for the EMG Force Main and Residuals Bypass System pipelines within the District’s operations yard and installation of portions of the AWP Pipeline in Mast Boulevard would likely occur within the area of contaminated soils, and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Haz-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring a DEH-approved Community Health & Safety and Soil Management Plans for the safe handling of contaminated soils.
These modifications would not change the conclusion or impact significance determination in the IS/MND and do not require recirculation of the Draft IS/MND.
D-9 This comment notes that the project facility operator must submit a Hazardous Materials Questionnaire to the County Hazardous Materials Division (HMD) and complete an HMD Hazardous Materials Plan Check review prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Department. The District will comply with all required local and state laws related to hazardous materials.
RTC-24 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-10 As described in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the IS/MND, the District will comply with all required local and state laws related to hazardous D-10 materials. cont. D-11 The District has a current Risk Management Plan (RMP)/California Accidental Release Prevention Plan (CalARP) for the existing Ray Stoyer Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). As part of the proposed project, the RMP/CalARP shall be revised to reflect the expanded facility. The revised plan will be submitted to DEH for review and approval.
The IS/MND currently addresses the use and storage of hazardous materials D-11 within sections VIII.a and VIII.b. The project would comply with all regulations, including the CalARP and RMP program as noted above. Therefore, no revision to the IS/MND is necessary.
D-12 As described under Section VIII of the IS/MND, hazardous materials and waste would be managed and used in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. This would include properly labeling and handling D-12 construction-related hazardous wastes and disposing of the waste by a registered hazardous waste hauler. In addition, a Unified Program Facility Permit has been added to Table 3 of the IS/MND, as follows:
D-13 County of San Diego Unified Program Facility Permit
D-13 The comment provides information regarding the County’s Hazardous Materials
Division (HMD). No further response is required.
D-14 The pipeline proposed for this portion of the residuals bypass system is D-14 anticipated to be constructed using trenchless technology. The entry/exit pit is
anticipated to be outside the former sludge pit. The depth of the pipeline is
anticipated to be much deeper than the former sludge pit. At this point, the
District does not anticipate that contaminated soil would be encountered as part
of the trenchless construction. However, as part of mitigation measure ECAWP
Haz-1, a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (H&SP) will be required to be
developed by the contractor to provide guidance for the handling of known and unknown hazards that may be encountered for the contractor’s and subcontractor’s personnel working onsite and the surrounding community.
RTC-25 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-15 The District will coordinate with the County DPW during design and planning to ensure avoidance of potential conflicts with future County DPW projects.
D-14 D-16 Contract documents will require the contractor to obtain the necessary permits. cont. The District will also consult with the County during the design process to restore or replace any County-maintained facilities to its original condition or better to the satisfaction of the County DPW.
D-17 The District will continue its practice of close coordination with the County D-15 regarding any potential impacts on County maintained roads, including conducting
roadway excavation in accordance with the County’s Pavement Cut Policy.
D-18 The District appreciates the ongoing partnership with the County Sanitation
District on this project. The District is committed to continue its close coordination D-16 with the County Sanitation District regarding any impacts to the County’s
sewerage facilities.
D-19 The District concurs that the proposed pipeline alignment would mostly be
aligned within existing roadways. The District does not anticipate any new
impervious surfaces created as part of the pipeline. However, the comment is D-17 noted and will be taken into consideration during the design process. The project
will comply with San Diego Municipal Storm Water Permit Order No. R9-2013-
0001. The District appreciates the offer of County staff resources to assist with
project design coordination. The District will contact the Watershed Protection
Program during final design of the project.
D-18
D-19
RTC-26 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-20 As noted in Section XV, Recreation, of the IS/MND, the District does not anticipate any impacts to the access or trail experience after the pipeline is installed and no significant impacts are expected.
D-19 The District appreciates the County Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) cont. making themselves available on November 1, 2018 to meet about the AWP Project and discuss their concerns. Discussions at the meeting provided additional context regarding DPR’s comments. From the meeting, the District understands DPR’s concerns regarding possible impacts regarding the trail from the south, preservation of the monument along the trail, and ensuring access to the Lakeside Ballfields during large events. Pipeline construction is not anticipated to restrict D-20 access to the ballfields. The District will consult with DPR during the pipeline design phase to coordinate and minimize any possible rerouting or closure of any trails in the area.
D-21 D-21 The District will consult with County DPR on any opportunity to enhance community trail connections as part of this project, if an appropriate nexus exists.
D-22 As noted in Section XV, Recreation, of the IS/MND, the District does not anticipate D-22 any impacts to the access or trail experience after the pipeline is installed and no significant impacts are expected. The District will consult with County DPR regarding closure or rerouting of trails. The project would not permanently affect the use of any County trails and any temporary closure or rerouting of trails would D-23 be restored once construction of the project is completed.
D-23 As discussed at the November 1, 2018 meeting, any disturbance to the trail easement at Hanson Pond would be restored within the affected area following pipeline installation. Additionally, the District will coordinate with DPR regarding pipeline alignment to ensure that trail access is not impeded and does not result D-24 in a lessening of trail use experience during construction activities. As noted in Section XV, Recreation, of the IS/MND, the District does not anticipate any impacts to the access or trail experience after the pipeline is installed and no significant impacts are expected.
D-25 D-24 The IS/MND evaluated potential environmental impacts within a 50-foot wide area along the trail, which would provide flexibility during design. The District will coordinate with DPR on the final alignment on this section of the pipeline. The District will also coordinate with DPR during design and construction to minimize the duration of trail closures.
RTC-27 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-25 The District is committed to working closely with DPR on the final design of the pipeline alignment. As noted earlier, and in sections I.a and I.c, the project would D-25 not impede any views of substantial visual resources such as the El Cajon cont. Mountain, the bench-cut section of the historic San Diego Flume, Hanson Pond, El Monte Valley, and would not significantly degrade the existing visual character D-26 and quality of the area as the pipeline would have a low profile (less than 3 feet in height) and would not interrupt views from the trail. In addition, during final design, design criteria would be developed so that the appearance of the new D-27 pipeline blends in with the surrounding vegetation, such as using paint colors for the pipeline that are compatible with the vegetation or employing vegetation for screening. D-28 D-26 Based on initial geotechnical data, anticipated construction methods, and possible construction challenges, the IS/MND conservatively estimates temporary closure D-29 of the public trail and trailhead parking for approximately 6 months during construction of this segment of pipeline, which would not result in a significant impact. As additional and more detailed field information is obtained this D-30 timeframe will be re-evaluated. As discussed at the November 1, 2018 meeting with DPR the District will closely coordinate with DPR to minimize the length of time of the trail closure. D-31
D-27 As noted in the IS/MND, following construction, the project would not result in D-32 any long-term impacts to users of the County’s trail system. Impacts during construction would be temporary and not considered significant.
D-33 D-28 As described in response D-25, during final design of the AWP pipeline, when the final design criteria and measures have been developed, post-project conceptual renditions of the pipeline will be prepared as appropriate by the Design Engineer. The pipeline would have a low profile and would be developed so that the appearance of the new pipeline blends in with the surrounding vegetation. The District is coordinating with County DPR and will continue to do so throughout the design process. Given the aforementioned, a visual simulation is not required to support the less than significant conclusion to scenic views and visual character and quality.
D-29 The District will continue to coordinate with the County during the design of the pipeline along County trails. The location where the treated water would emerge from the tunnel would not be along a designated County trail. However, the materials will be designed to visually blend in with natural environment.
RTC-28 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-30 Implementation of Mitigation measure CFMP Aes-1 would apply to construction disturbance to any facilities affected by the project. With implementation of CFMP Aes-1, impacts are determined to be less than significant, and no additions to the measure are necessary for a less than significant conclusion. However, in response to this comment, the following clarifying text has been added to CFMP Aes-1 in the Final IS/MND as follows (as indicated by strikeout/underlined text):
CFMP Aes-1 Construction Visual Disturbance Minimization Measures. The following measures would be incorporated into the design and construction of CFMP projects project components that involve ground disturbance or construction within trails to minimize potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the projects:
• Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal.
• Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to the extent needed to facilitate
project construction and access to the site.
• Construction lighting will be shielded or directed away from adjacent residences.
• All roadway and trail features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway
surfaces, etc.) and structures 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 removed vegetation included invasive plant species, the restored area shall be revegetated with a mix of native, non-invasive plants that are compatible with the surrounding setting. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by the District, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by the District to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CFMP 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.
These modifications would not change the conclusion or impact significance determination in the IS/MND.
D-31 The District does not anticipate the AWP project would impact water services or water quality to Lindo Lake because the project would not provide water to Lindo Lake.
RTC-29 COMMENTS RESPONSES
D-32 The AWP project does not propose to provide water to Lindo Lake. Water within the AWP pipeline will be chlorinated and subsequently dechlorinated prior to discharge into Lake Jennings.
D-33 General locations of the phased construction activities are represented in the figures included in the IS/MND, specifically Figures 3 through 6 and Figure 9. Based on the proposed pipeline alignment, the District does not anticipate any impacts to the County’s Lindo Lake project because the project would not provide water to Lindo Lake. The District will coordinate with the County during final design.
RTC-30 COMMENTS RESPONSES
E-1 The District appreciates the City of Santee’s support for the project. Please see below for responses to City of Santee comments.
E-1 E-2 The District will coordinate with the City of Santee regarding the AWP pipeline alignment during design to avoid conflicts with the proposed storm drain realignment. Additionally, during design of the AWP pipeline, the Design Engineer will complete a utility research process to coordinate with agencies and/or companies with utilities in the vicinity of the pipeline, including the City of Santee to identify possible utility conflicts (both for existing and proposed utilities) to support in the selection of a final alignment for the pipeline. Potential utility E-2 conflicts will be identified as early as possible in the final design and adjustments to the horizontal and vertical alignment will be made, as required, to avoid conflicts. Any final design adjustments would remain within the anticipated footprint described in the Draft IS/MND and would not result in new impacts.
E-3 E-3 Please see response D-7. Mitigation measure ECAWP Haz-1 has been modified to include that the construction contract will require the general contractor or the subcontractor performing excavation work to have a California-issued Hazardous Substance Removal “HAZ” certificate.
RTC-31 COMMENTS RESPONSES
E-4 As described in Section XVI, mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 would reduce impacts to transportation and traffic from project construction to less than significant through a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), and no additions to the measure are necessary for a less than significant conclusion. However, in response E-3 to the recommendation of this comment, the construction work time cont. requirements have been added to mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 in the Final IS/MND, as follows (indicated by underlined text):
ECAWP Tra-1 Traffic Management Plan. Prior to construction, the applicant shall prepare a comprehensive Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the proposed project. The TMP shall be prepared in accordance with all applicable requirements of the City and County encroachment permits and applicable City and County E-4 plans, ordinances, and policies. The applicants shall submit the TMP to City of Santee and County of San Diego for review, comment, and approval. The TMP may include, but not be limited to, provisions for the following:
• Scheduling the timing and duration of work to avoid the peak commuter hours of 7:00-9:00 am and 4:00-6:00 pm; E-5 • Scheduling of daytime work on Mast Boulevard that would require lane
closures will be limited to the hours between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
• Limiting construction work at the following intersections to Monday through E-6 Thursday nights between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.:
o Mast Boulevard and Carlton Hills Boulevard
o Mast Boulevard and Cuyamaca Street
o Mast Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue;
• Restricting construction activities around El Capitan High School during drop- off and pick-up times;
The potential for reduced work hours would not substantially lengthen the
construction duration for work along this roadway that would be inconsistent with
the assumptions in the MND. These modifications would not change the
conclusion or impact significance determination in the IS/MND.
RTC-32 COMMENTS RESPONSES
E-5 Pavement restoration will be in accordance with City of Santee requirements. The District looks forward to consulting with the City of Santee regarding the final limits of pavement restoration along Mast Boulevard.
E-6 Table 3 within the IS/MND lists an encroachment permit from the City of Santee as an anticipated regulatory permit. The District appreciates the City’s offer to provide a formal review prior to bidding and will engage the City during the design phase.
RTC-33 COMMENTS RESPONSES
F-1 The District appreciates Helix Water District’s comments. Please see responses below.
F-1
RTC-34 COMMENTS RESPONSES
F-2 The sewer agencies of the AWP program (Padre Dam Municipal Water District, City of El Cajon, County Sanitation District) are proactively working with the City of San Diego on development of a process for a long-range comprehensive residuals management plan. It is anticipated that the comprehensive residuals management plan will be in place prior to the start-up of all facilities. There are no changes on how residuals are being managed under the current sewer disposal agreement, and therefore there would be no temporary impacts. F-1 cont. F-3 Controlled blasting is not anticipated within Helix Water District’s jurisdiction. While rock excavation is anticipated along several areas of the AWP pipeline, it is anticipated that rock encountered which is non-rippable would be excavated utilizing mechanical means such as a hydraulically operated rock breaker. In the F-2 event that blasting is needed, the contractor would be required to obtain a blasting permit and explosive permit per the San Diego County Regulatory Ordinances and blasting activities would be regulated per the County Consolidated Fire Code. Additionally, a site-specific analysis would be required to F-3 ensure that emissions from blasting activities would be within the daily San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) emission limits. Mitigation measures, including but not limited to, CFMP Air-1, CFMP Noi-3, CFMP Noi-4, and CFMP Noi-5, have been included in the IS/MND to mitigate the potentially significant F-4 impacts associated with blasting to less than significant levels.
F-4 Table 3 of the IS/MND has been revised to include a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and a water purchase agreement with Helix Water District to the anticipated regulatory permits and approvals (addition indicated by underlined text):
F-5 Helix Water District Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) Water Purchase Agreement between JPA and Helix Water District Sub-Water Purchase Agreement between JPA and Helix Water District
F-6 F-5 Although CFMP Aes-1 does not state a specific time for removal, demolition debris will be stockpiled and protected in place temporarily. Debris will be covered in accordance with SWPPP requirements. With the SWPPP in place, there is no need for a time restriction for removal, as no potential for an adverse impact would F-7 occur.
RTC-35 COMMENTS RESPONSES
F-6 The District does not anticipate the augmenting of purified water into Lake Jennings to adversely affect the water quality within the lake or change the nutrient profile of the reservoir and recreational fishery at the lake. There is a lack of supporting data to suggest that the Lake Jennings fishery would be substantially adversely affected. Further, game fishes within the lake are not considered by wildlife agencies to be biologically sensitive species that require protection. Sensitive natural communities are not anticipated to be adversely affected by the water quality with augmentation of purified water. Therefore, impacts on limited nutrient availability for aquatic ecosystems would be less than significant. Because impacts are not significant, the fisheries management plan described on page 41 of the IS/MND is voluntary and not considered a mitigation measure. Preparation and implementation of the fisheries management plan would be conducted in coordination with Helix Water District as part of best management practices for reservoir operations. The assessment is estimated to be completed in Fall 2019, and the need for a fisheries management plan would be determined by approximately the end of 2019.
F-7 Although mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1B was inadvertently omitted from the IS/MND list of mitigation, the measure has been added to the IS/MND. Note that the full text of CFMP Bio-1B was available in the referenced CFMP PEIR. Please also see Response O1-17. The portions of CFMP Bio-1B referencing the rare plant surveys and mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1D and Bio-1E have been removed from CFMP Bio-1B, as the rare plant surveys have already been conducted and results incorporated into the IS/MND, and as mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1D and Bio-1E do not apply. Note that this revision does not affect the conclusion in the IS/MND.
RTC-36 COMMENTS RESPONSES
F-8 In response to this comment, mitigation measure CFMP Bio-2A has been revised to the following:
The District shall compensate the loss of habitat according to the ratios provided in the table below, which could be adjusted during project-level studies and in F-8 coordination with the project biologist depending on where the compensatory
mitigation would be located and whether the impacted habitat supports special-
status species or other sensitive resources. Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage F-9 scrub, southern willow scrub, and open water shall not be adjusted below a 1:1
mitigation ratio consistent with the no-net-loss standard, unless otherwise F-10 conditioned in permits and/or discretionary approvals issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as applicable. F-11 This edit does not affect the conclusion in the IS/MND.
F-9 The comment is correct, and mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-2 has been revised to correctly refer to coastal California gnatcatcher in the Final IS/MND. This edit F-12 corrects a typographical error and does not affect the conclusion in the IS/MND.
F-10 Erosion/sedimentation is discussed in Section IX.c. of the IS/MND. Section IX.c-e
has been revised in the IS/MND to provide the following clarifying text:
Accordingly, associated increases in runoff rates and amounts would be minor, F-13 and related potential impacts associated with erosion and flooding are expected to
be less than significant.
F-11 In response to this comment, mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1B has been added to
the discussion under Section X, Land Use, item (c) in the Final IS/MND. The
addition of this measure to Section X.c provides clarification, as CFMP Bio-1B was
discussed in Section IV in a similar context to the other mitigation measures listed F-14 under Section X.c. This modification does not change the conclusion or impact
significance determination in the IS/MND, which remains less than significant for
land use.
F-12 The IS/MND lists potentially significant impacts from noise to biological resources
during dechlorination facility, inlet, and Lake Jennings facilities construction. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the discussion on page 92 has been revised to list the applicable mitigation measure, as follows:
RTC-37 COMMENTS RESPONSES
F-12 (cont.)
Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1I would reduce potential impacts using setback distances and/or noise barriers. Impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
F-15 The revision is clarification of the applicable mitigation measure within the text and does not change the conclusion or impact significance determination in the IS/MND.
F-13 Performance standards are included within the noise mitigation measures, including for operational noise (CFMP Noi-2, ECAWP Noi-1, ECAWP Noi-2, and ECAWP Noi-3) and construction noise (CFMP Noi-3 and Noi-4). For operational noise, as listed in the mitigation measures, a final noise impact analysis or design plan review will be conducted by a qualified acoustician to determine compliance with the performance standard. For construction noise, the measure within additional mitigation (CFMP Noi-5) would assist with compliance with the performance standards in CFMP Noi-3 and Noi-4. These mitigation measures are sufficient to ensure that noise levels are reduced to within the performance standards listed, and no revisions are necessary.
F-14 A Traffic Management Plan cannot be developed until the final project design is developed because the plan will need to be developed in coordination with obtaining encroachment permits, which would not occur until after adoption of the IS/MND. As shown in mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1, various performance measures (e.g., limiting construction hours, restricting construction activities in certain areas, etc.) are included that may be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant.
F-15 This comment concludes the letter. The District looks forward to continuing to coordinate with Helix Water District on the implementation of the project.
RTC-38 COMMENTS RESPONSES
G-1 The District appreciates the comment. Note that a Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed with the County Clerk and posted in the San Diego Union-Tribune on September G-1 14, and that the Draft IS/MND was circulated for public review in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15072 for a period of 31 days (from September 14, 2018 to October 15, 2018).
G-2 G-2 Impacts to equestrian and cyclists of the Flume Trail are considered within the overall discussion of potential impacts to recreational users. As discussed in Section XV.b of the IS/MND, although the trail would be closed during G-3 construction of the pipeline, this closure would be temporary and access to the
trail would be fully restored to pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrian users after G-4 project construction.
G-3 As noted in responses D-20 and D-22, the District will consult with County DPR
regarding closure or rerouting of trails. District staff met with County DPR on
November 1, 2018 to discuss their concerns and to confirm that the District
intends to work with DPR during the design of the project. G-5
The project would not permanently affect the use of any County trails and any
temporary closure or rerouting of trails would be restored once construction of
the project is completed. The easement granted to the County by Helix Water
District retains their right as the landowner to install piping, appurtenant
structures, and utilities in or across the easement area, and to require temporary G-6 closure of the County’s trails if needed to install these facilities.
G-4 The comment asserts that the public access to the proposed pipeline would
present a safety risk to the extent that the County would be inclined to restrict
public access following an incident related to vandalism or terrorism. However,
there is no evidence to support the claim that this segment of above-ground
pipeline transporting treated water would present a safety risk to the public related to a terrorist attack. Per Section 15145 of the State CEQA Guidelines, if an impact is too speculative for evaluation, it does not need to be discussed. Further, the District does not intend to permanently restrict access to the pipeline in a manner that would affect the trail in response to these, or any other, concerns.
RTC-39 COMMENTS RESPONSES
G-5 As noted in prior responses, any temporary closures of the trail would be fully restored to pedestrian, cyclist, and equestrian access following construction of the proposed project. The pipeline alignment would be either underground or above- ground along the hillside and would not require trail users to traverse the pipe to access the trail. The pipeline does not present a safety or security risk to recreational users of the trail.
G-6 The Historic Flume Trail1 was opened by the County DPR in 2016 and is not considered a historical resource. The historical aspect of the area is for the flume that no longer exists and the historical alignment of which does not cross the trail. Although the trail would be closed during construction on the proposed pipeline, this closure would be temporary and access to the trail would be fully restored after project construction. As noted earlier and in sections I.a and I.c of the IS/MND, the project would not impede any views of substantial visual resources such as the El Cajon Mountain, the bench-cut section of the historic San Diego Flume, Hanson Pond, and El Monte Valley. The project would also not significantly affect the visual character of the area, as the pipeline would have a low profile (with a vertical height of approximately three feet) and would be designed to blend in with the surrounding vegetation. Given these considerations, potentially significant impacts would not occur to aesthetics, historic resources, or recreational impacts.
1 The trail is referred to as the “Historic Flume Trail” on signage at the entry to the trail and in this title is used to refer to the trail in the IS/MND. However, County DPR and Helix Water District refer to the same trail (see comment letters D and F) as the “Helix Flume Trail.” Signage near the bench of the trail also uses the title of “Helix Flume Trail.”
RTC-40 COMMENTS RESPONSES
H-1 This section of the letter is introductory and acknowledges the prior outreach efforts made to the San Diego Archaeological Society in July 2018 during preparation of the cultural resources analysis for the project.
H-1 H-2 The final design of the proposed pipeline has not yet been developed, and as a result, impacts to historic resources were conservatively determined to be potentially significant. However, through implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Cul-1, the portion of the AWP pipeline through the El Monte Tunnel will be designed in coordination with a qualified Historic Preservation Specialist and the State Historic Preservation Officer. The final project design is required to follow the H-2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
ensure that no adverse impacts to historic resources would occur as a result of the
project. In addition, permanent impacts to the decorative exterior façades of the
tunnel entrances would be avoided. H-3
H-3 As described in Section V of the IS/MND and in the Cultural Resources Inventory
and Assessment (attached as Appendix C to the IS/MND), the cultural resources H-4 within the area of potential effects (APE) of the proposed project were evaluated for significance of the resource as well as any potential impacts that would occur as a result of the project. Extensive research was conducted for the El Monte Pump Station, the equipment within the pump station building, as well as the pipelines extending from the station towards Lake Jennings to evaluate those resources for historical significance.
RTC-41 COMMENTS RESPONSES
H-3 (cont.) As described on page 52 of the IS/MND, historic-period elements of the El Monte Pump Station include the pumphouse, a small outbuilding, pipes, and associated concrete features. The El Monte Pump Station does not have significance for direct association with an event or pattern of events important to the history of the nation, state, or San Diego County; does not have a direct association with the work for which a historically important individual is primarily known; does not have architectural or engineering significance or significance in the history of pump technology and hydraulic engineering; and is unlikely to yield further information important in history (a detailed justification for each listed point is provided in Section 6.1.2.2 of Appendix D to the IS/MND). As such, the resource is ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources and is not considered as historically significant per State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) and (b)). Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact with regard to the pumphouse and no mitigation or further evaluation of alternatives is required.
The Initial Study prepared for the project showed that for each topic discussed in the environmental checklist, either there was no impact, a less than significant impact, or a mitigation measure either avoided the effects or mitigated the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur. Therefore, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, the appropriate document for a public agency to prepare is a mitigated negative declaration.
The District acknowledges there is additional room on the Helix Water District property for the proposed dechlorination facility to be located. Due to operational requirements of Helix Water District, the abandoned El Monte Pumphouse was identified as a location for the proposed dechlorination facility as a worst-case scenario for the purposes of the environmental analysis. Ultimately, the final location of the dechlorination facility is the decision of the Helix Water District. The District will continue to work closely with Helix Water District on the design and location of the proposed dechlorination facility to reflect the concerns of the local community.
H-4 The comment acknowledges that the San Diego County Archeological Society concurs with the requirements of mitigation measure ECAWP Cul-2 with regard to archeological resources.
RTC-42 COMMENTS RESPONSES
I-1 The initial comment is introductory and provides the background of the commenter. The District appreciates the comments provided by the Lakeside I-1 Historical Society.
I-2 The Construction Traffic Analysis (CTA) prepared for the project (attached as Appendix G to the IS/MND), analyzed potential traffic impacts associated with I-2 construction of the pipeline. As shown in Table 9-2 of the CTA, Mapleview Street/Lake Jennings Road and El Monte Road were analyzed for impacts from the addition of project traffic and from the lower capacity of the roadways due to lane closures during construction. The roadways were determined to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) during construction, which would be a less than I-3 significant impact. The project would still implement mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1, which requires a Traffic Management Plan for construction in this area. Measures to be implemented from this mitigation measure would consider scheduling construction traffic outside of the peak commuter hours. In addition, the measure has been revised to include restricting construction traffic around El Capitan High School during drop-off and pick-up times (please see response E-4).
I-3 Please see response H-3 regarding the assessment of the pumphouse. The District acknowledges the attached photos; these photos do not provide new information for the analysis, as the pictures are consistent with the historical description of the pumphouse and equipment in the IS/MND and Appendix D.
RTC-43 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-44 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-45 COMMENTS RESPONSES
RTC-46 COMMENTS RESPONSES
J-1 Please see response H-3 regarding the historic evaluation of the pumphouse. J-1 J-2 The comment asserts that the Cultural Resources Inventory and Impact Assessment for the San Diego River Trail El Monte Segment Project, San Diego County, California (Crawford et al. 2015) identifies the El Monte Pumphouse as J-2 historically significant. However, this is not an accurate assessment of the resource. Specifically, the report states that “evaluation of resources was not conducted as part of this study but preliminary evaluation recommendations are included … for planning purposes” (2015:47). A basic historic context for understanding the circumstances of El Monte Pump Station’s reconstruction in the latter 1930s was completed for the 2015 report; however, research of sufficient scope and depth to support formal evaluation of the pump station was not conducted at that time.
The 1937 newspaper reference describing the pump system as a “a new accomplishment of modern engineering” was further analyzed as part of the historic context developed for the historic resources assessment conducted for the proposed project. As local newspaper reporters writing about local public works were inclined to do in that era, the article’s author appears to have overstated the innovativeness of the new pumping plant at El Monte Pump Station. As detailed in the Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment (Appendix D of the IS/MND), American water engineers began using electric centrifugal pumps in the 1910s. By the 1930s pumping plants often consisted of multiple pumps powered by single or multiple electric motors, often with differently sized impellers, that together provided for efficient pumping capacity under varying heads and varying gallons-per-day delivery demands.
RTC-47
COMMENTS RESPONSES
J-2 (cont.)
By the second half of the 1930s, the impeller sizes and motor power of the United States’ most technologically advanced electric pumping plants far exceeded the pumps and motors at the redeveloped El Monte Pump Station.
As stated in response H-3, the pumphouse (including the pumping equipment) is ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources and is not considered as historically significance per State CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) and (b)). Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact with regard to the pumphouse and no mitigation is required. However, the District recognizes that the existing pumphouse and pumps are important to the local community and will not only continue to work closely with Helix Water District on the design and location of the proposed dechlorination facility to reflect the concerns of the local community but is also willing to work with Save Our Heritage Oranisation (SOHO) and other interested stakeholders on possible relocation options and/or other interpretive education opportunities.
RTC-48 COMMENTS RESPONSES
K-1 The Initial Study prepared for the project showed that for each topic discussed in the environmental checklist, either there was no impact, a less than significant K-1 impact, or a mitigation measure either avoided the effects or mitigated the effects
to a point where no significant effects would occur. Therefore, per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15070, the appropriate document for a public agency to K-2 prepare is a mitigated negative declaration.
K-2 This generalized comment does not identify specific mitigation measures with
which the commenter takes issue.
To be considered adequate, mitigation measures should be specific, feasible K-3 actions that would improve adverse conditions caused by the project. The
measures should be measurable to allow monitoring of their implementation.
Where specifics of a design are not yet available, mitigation measures may allow
for future choices as to the detail of how they will be accomplished if they also K-4 contain specific performance standards that would assure that the significant
effect of the project is indeed reduced. The measures included in the IS/MND for
the project fulfill these requirements and would be incorporated as part of project approval pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15073, along with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would describe the specifics of how each measure would be monitored and tracked.
RTC-49 COMMENTS RESPONSES
K-3 Section 15073 of the State CEQA Guidelines describe the requirements for public review of a proposed MND, including a 30-day public review period for projects that require review by state agencies. The project’s IS/MND was circulated for 31 days and has fulfilled the requirements of CEQA (as noted in the Clearinghouse attached as Letter A). There are no specifications that require public meetings to be held during the review period or for oral comments to be recorded. To maximize public outreach, the District held two public meetings during the review period (on September 27 and October 2, 2018). As noted in the introduction to these responses, oral comments were made with respect to the issues of public safety of the treated water and with the adequacy of the environmental review. At both of the public meetings, public comment forms were available for attendees to fill out at the meeting, or to return by mail or email to the District. Two attendees provided written comments at the October 2, 2018 meeting, which are provided here as letters U and V (with responses). Others, including the author of this letter who also provided oral comments at the October 2nd meeting, provided comments at a later date within the stated public comment period. An attendee of the September 27th meeting also provided a comment letter included as Letter S to these responses. Therefore, extension of the public comment period is not necessary.
K-4 This generalized comment does not specify which biological impacts the commenter believes are not fully disclosed and does specify which surveys the commenter believes must be completed. Further, the comment does not specify which avoidance measures or mitigation measures it believes are not adequately included.
Impacts to biological resources are discussed in Section IV of the IS/MND. A project-specific biological assessment of the project study area (which included a buffer around the project components to capture off-site impacts), which included species surveys, was conducted for the project and is attached as Appendix C to the IS/MND. Potentially significant impacts were identified to rare plants, nesting birds, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional resources; as a result, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. As discussed previously, all potential impacts associated with the project would be mitigated with the inclusion of incorporation of project- specific or CFMP Program EIR mitigation measures.
RTC-50 COMMENTS RESPONSES
L-1 The comment is an introduction from the secretary for the Blossom Valley Trails Alliance. Many of the commenter’s concerns are similar to the letter submitted L-1 from the president of the Blossom Valley Trails Alliance, which is attached as Letter G. As noted in response G-2, impacts to equestrian and cyclists on the Flume Trail are considered with the overall discussion of potential impacts to recreational users. L-2 L-2 While construction of the portion of the AWP pipeline near the Historic Flume L-3 Trail would require temporary closure of the public trail and trailhead parking facility for safety reasons, public access to the trail would be restored once construction is complete. The project does not propose to permanently restrict L-4 public access to the trail. See response G-4 for additional information on security and safety.
L-3 As noted in response D-22, the District will consult with County DPR regarding L-5 closure or rerouting of trails. The project would not permanently affect the use of any County trails and any temporary closure or rerouting of trails would be restored once construction of the project is completed. L-6 L-4 As noted in response D-22, the District will consult with County DPR regarding closure or rerouting of trails. The project would not permanently affect the use of any County trails and any temporary closure or rerouting of trails would be restored once construction of the project is completed. As noted in response G-2, impacts to equestrian and cyclists on the Historic Flume Trail are considered within the overall discussion of potential impacts to recreational users. As discussed in Section XV.b of the IS/MND, although the trail would be closed during construction of the pipeline, this closure would be temporary and access to the trail would be fully restored to pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrian users after project construction.
L-5 The 900-foot section of the AWP pipeline would not affect the usability of the trail. The pipeline would run parallel to the Historic Flume Trail, and at no point would the pipeline block access to the trail or result in users having to cross over the pipeline.
RTC-51 COMMENTS RESPONSES
L-6 The Historic Flume Trail was completed by the County DPR in 2016 and is not itself considered historic. Impacts to natural habitats along the Flume Trail are discussed in the Biological Resources Technical Letter (Attachment C of the IS/MND) and in Section IV of the IS/MND. The District will compensate the loss of habitat according to mitigation measure CFMP Bio-2A. The District appreciates the comments and will continue to work with County DPR on the final design of the AWP pipeline along the Historic Flume Trail (please also see response D-20 regarding the District’s meeting with County DPR staff).
Installing the pipeline below ground will be considered during final design, the feasibility of which would depend on the underlying geology. The pipeline has been analyzed as an above-ground pipeline in the IS/MND for a more conservative analysis in terms of visual impacts.
RTC-52 COMMENTS RESPONSES
M-1 The District appreciates the comment. The project does not propose to restrict access to equestrians or cyclists and the presence of the pipeline would not require the County to restrict access to the trail. The easement granted to the County preserves Helix Water District’s right as the landowner to install piping, M-1 appurtenant structures, and utilities in or across the easement area, and to require temporary closure of the trails if needed to construct these facilities. Please also see responses D-22 through D-29, G-2, and G-4.
RTC-53 COMMENTS RESPONSES
N-1 The District appreciates the comment and agrees that water recycling is a safe, effective, and important strategy for water reliability in our region. The community of Lakeside is considered throughout the impact analysis within the N-1 IS/MND. Please see responses to your specifics comments below.
N-2 Construction on Mapleview Street would occur during construction of the AWP pipeline. As discussed in the Project Description in the IS/MND, construction of the pipeline would occur at a pace of approximately 30 to 40 feet per work area per day (the contractor may use slightly more than 30 to 40 feet per day of roadway to prepare the next sections of the roadway). This would mean that the N-2 duration of pipeline construction in any one area of the street would be temporary (i.e., only the section of the roadway being worked on would potentially require lane closures). In addition, as shown in Table 9-2 of the CTA, Mapleview Street/Lake Jennings Road was analyzed for impacts from the addition of project traffic and from the lower capacity of the roadway due to land closures during construction. The roadway was determined to operate at LOS B with N-3 project construction, which would be a less than significant impact. The project would still implement mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1, which implements a Traffic Management Plan, for construction in this area. Measures to be implemented from this mitigation measure may include construction outside of the peak commuter hours. In addition, per concerns about traffic impacts to N-4 El Capitan High School, a provision to restrict construction activities around El Capitan High School during drop-off and pick-up times has been added to mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1. N-5
RTC-54 COMMENTS RESPONSES
N-3 The comment is referring to the El Monte Sand Mining Project, which is currently under environmental review in the unincorporated County of San Diego. Information regarding the project is found within the project’s draft EIR, which is available at the County’s website.2 The District is not involved in the planning or approval of the sand mining project. As described under response N-2, AWP pipeline construction on the roadways of concern to the commenter would be temporary (i.e., approximately several months) and may or may not overlap with the operation of the sand mine. Potential impacts would be mitigated with the implementation of the construction traffic control plan required as part of ECAWP Tra-1. In response to this comment, additional discussion has been added below the second paragraph within question (b) to Section XIX of the Final IS/MND, which discusses cumulative impacts, to acknowledge the El Monte Sand Mining Project, as follows:
The El Monte Sand Mining Project is currently being proposed in the unincorporated County of San Diego. The sand mining project would be located within the El Monte Valley and the mine would extend to near the ECAWP project’s easternmost boundary (i.e., where the dechlorination facility is located and where the AWP pipeline ends). The El Monte Sand Mining Project’s Draft EIR (SCH No. 2015081025) has completed public review (August 30, 2018 to October 29, 2018), but the project has yet to be approved by the County (County 2018). According to the EIR, the sand mine would operate for 12 years and may open soon after the project is approved. The sand mining project would export some of the mined sand with heavy trucks through El Monte Road, to Lake Jennings Park Road, to Mapleview Avenue and to SR 67. Therefore, these heavy trucks may be driving through at the same time as the AWP pipeline is being constructed within Mapleview Avenue and El Monte Road (the pipeline would be routed around Lake Jennings Park Road). Section XVI, Transportation, of this IS/MND identifies potentially significant traffic impacts to the intersection of Lake Jennings Park Road and El Monte Road for the AM peak hour during construction of the AWP Pipeline. Traffic on the roadway segments for El Monte Road and Mapleview Street/Lake Jennings Park Road were found to operate at an acceptable LOS during construction (including road closures). Although the sand mining project would contribute additional truck trips to roadways where the AWP pipeline would be placed, mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 would be implemented to reduce impacts to the roadways and intersection from the proposed project with
2 https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ProjectPlanning/El-Monte-Sand-Mining- And-Nature-Preserve/SDEIRPublicReview/EIRChapters/000Cover.pdf
RTC-55 COMMENTS RESPONSES
N-3 (cont.)
consideration of cumulative projects, including the El Monte Sand Mining Project; potential provisions in the measure to lessen impacts in this area includes scheduling the timing and duration of work to avoid the peak commuter hours of 7:00-9:00 am and 4:00-6:00 pm.
The proposed project would also generate noise in these areas near the El Monte Valley. Noise generated by construction activities at these sites would potentially affect sensitive habitat; however, the proposed project would implement mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1I, CFMP Noi-4, and CFMP Noi-5 to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The El Monte Sand Mining Project would also be subject to County noise limits and measures to control noise levels would likely be implemented. In addition, as discussed in Section 6.2 of the CFMP PEIR, construction of cumulative development projects within the vicinity of the project location would not be likely to result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels due to the localized nature of noise impacts.
The revisions to question Section XIX.b merely clarifies the existing analysis, and these revisions do not identify any new impacts that were not previously disclosed in the circulated Draft IS/MND.
N-4 The IS/MND analyzes potential impacts to sensitive plant and animal species within the Biological Resources Technical Letter (attached as Appendix C of the IS/MND), as well as Section IV of the IS/MND. The study area encompassed a 50-foot buffer around the project components and included general biological surveys, rare plant surveys, and protocol surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly. Although the project would result in potential impacts to special status species and sensitive habitats; impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through implementation of PEIR mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1B, CFMP Bio-1F, CFMP Bio-1H, CFMP Bio 1I, CFMP Bio-1J, CFMP Bio-1K, CFMP Bio 2A, CFMP Bio-3B, CFMP Bio-3C, and project-level mitigation measures ECAWP Bio-1 through ECAWP Bio-7.
N-5 The IS/MND analyzed impacts associated with potentially historic features within the project’s area of potential effects, as described in Section V.a of the IS/MND, and in the Cultural Resources Inventory and Assessment (attached as Appendix C to the IS/MND). Research was conducted for the El Monte Pump Station, equipment within the pump station building, the pipelines extending from the pump station, as well as the El Monte Tunnel.
RTC-56 COMMENTS RESPONSES
N-6 N-5 (cont.)
N-7 While the pump station and pipeline were not determined to be historically significant, the project was determined to result in potentially significant impacts to the El Monte Tunnel. Mitigation measure ECAWP Cul-1 would be required to N-8 ensure that no adverse impacts to historic resources would occur as a result of the N-9 project.
N-10 N-6 Potential impacts to archeological resources are discussed within Section X(b) of the IS/MND and impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are discussed in Section XVII of the IS/MND. The District has established a Native American N-11 Sacred Resources Policy in conjunction with the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians and regularly engages the local tribes regarding District projects. The District recognizes the potential to encounter cultural resources and TCRs during project N-12 implementation; therefore, the project would implement mitigation measure CFMP Cul-2 that requires that a Native American monitor be present during ground-disturbing work in areas with soils identified as having a reasonable potential for containing cultural material.
N-7 Please refer to response N-3 for a discussion of traffic impacts at the intersection of Lake Jennings Park Road and El Monte Road.
N-8 The IS/MND states that construction of the portion of the AWP pipeline near the Historic Flume Trail would require temporary closure of the public trail and trailhead parking facility for approximately six months. However, upon completion of that component, public access to the trail would be restored. The District would work with the County DPR to minimize any potential access issues to public trails near Hanson’s Pond through the implementation of mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1.
N-9 Valley fever is an illness caused by inhalation of Coccidioides spores, which can occur in sandy well-aerated soils and can cause symptoms such as fatigue, cough, fever, shortness of breath, headache, night sweats, muscle pain, and rashes. San Diego County is a suspected endemic area for Coccidioides. Because Valley Fever is contracted mainly through inhalation of the Coccidioides spores following soil disturbance, per California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, better known as Cal/OSHA),3 the primary tool in reducing exposure is to control
3 California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). 2017. Protection from Valley Fever. November. Available at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/valley-fever-home.html
RTC-57 COMMENTS RESPONSES
N-9 (cont.)
emissions of soil particles and dust during the clearing and grading of the topsoil layer. The project would water disturbed areas to retain dust in its location to comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. In addition, the project’s emissions of particulate matter (which includes soil) would be much lower than the daily screening levels established by the SDAPCD (as shown in Table 4 of the IS/MND). There are no established significance thresholds for exposure to Valley Fever, however, given that soil disturbance for the project would be temporary and would cease upon installation of the pipe, and that the amount of soil disturbed would be relatively low, the potential to expose people to airborne Coccidioides spores would not be considered significant.
N-10 Please refer to response H-3 regarding the El Monte Pump Station.
N-11 Please refer to responses N-2 and N-3 regarding potential construction traffic impacts.
N-12 The District appreciates the comments. As discussed above, the community of Lakeside is considered throughout the impact analysis within the IS/MND, and project design and mitigation measures have taken into consideration potential impacts on the community. Impacts to the community would not be significant. Please see responses to your specific comments above.
RTC-58 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-1 The District has taken steps to provide the public with all relevant project information and appreciates public input regarding the proposed ECAWP project. It is understood that the commenter attended the Lakeside Planning Group O1-1 meeting held on October 3, 2018 where the District gave a presentation about the project. The link to download the draft IS/MND (https://www.padredam.org/99/Public-Notices) was provided on the public notices that were mailed to recipients on the distribution list, the newspaper advertisement published in the San Diego Public Tribune, as well as on the District’s main website during the public comment period. Paper copies of the document were also available at four local libraries. Impacts to the Lakeside O1-2 community were discussed throughout the IS/MND, as applicable, including potential impacts related to traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, recreation, and noise.
O1-3 O1-2 The Historic Flume Trail was constructed by the County in 2016 and is not considered a significant engineering accomplishment. Regarding the flume itself, O1-4 the IS/MND analyzed the impacts within the area of potential effects of the project. The bench cut for the flume that was constructed in the 1800s extends O1-5 northeast from the northern entrance of the El Monte tunnel and is now part of
the Historic Flume Trail. That segment of the trail is not within the area of O1-6 potential effect of the project. The objective of the proposed project is to O1-7 transport purified water to Lake Jennings to supplement the potable water supply; O1-8 the project is not intended to provide an historic restoration or reproduction of the design of the historic flume. A detailed discussion of the history of the flume, O1-9 including imagery, can be found within Section 2.2.43 of the Cultural Resources
Inventory and Assessment (Appendix C of the IS/MND).
RTC-59 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-3 The conceptual alignment of the AWP pipeline is depicted on Figure 5 of the IS/MND and is currently proposed to be located on the Historic Flume Trail shelf. The location of the pipeline would be set during final design and the District would coordinate with the County of San Diego DPR (please see response D-20). As noted in response D-25, the project would not impede views of visual resources such as the El Cajon Mountain, bench-cut section of the historic San Diego Flume, Hanson Pond or El Monte Valley.
O1-4 The width of the pipeline, including saddle support structures, would be approximately three feet and is currently conceptually envisioned to be located on the southernmost side of the Historic Flume Trail shelf. However, note that the trail could be located anywhere within the 50-foot wide alignment buffer identified within the IS/MND. The length of the pipeline segment in that area would be approximately 1,100 feet. Following construction of the pipeline (estimated to be approximately 6 months in duration), no aspect or length of the trail would be restricted to recreational users.
O1-5 The pipeline is currently envisioned to be located on the southernmost side of the Historic Flume Trail shelf; however, the final design may be refined in consultation with the County DPR (see response O1-4).
O1-6 No portion of the Historic Flume Trail shelf would be destroyed by placement of the pipeline. Any impacts to the existing site conditions during construction would be repaired or restored to pre-construction conditions or better. The proposed pipeline would parallel the segment of the Historic Flume Trail that was newly constructed and completed in 2016; the trail itself is not historic or part of the historic flume. The portion of the trail extending northeast from the northern entrance of the El Monte Tunnel was constructed along the historic flume bench cut; however, that portion of the trail would not be directly affected by the project.
O1-7 As noted previously, the public would still be able to use the Historic Flume Trail following project construction.
O1-8 The public would still be able to reach the El Monte Tunnel entrance when the pipeline is in place. Further, a portion of the pipeline near the tunnel entrances would be designed in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by mitigation measure ECAWP Cul-1.
RTC-60 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-9 The current width of the trail would be restored following construction of the pipeline (the pipeline would be adjacent to the trail easement, not within it) and it would be designed in such a way as not to restrict pedestrian, bicycle, or O1-10 equestrian use of the trails.
O1-10 Please refer to response H-3 regarding the El Monte Pump Station.
O1-11 The IS/MND does not dispute the significance of the flume system as an historic resource or the El Monte Tunnel, which was a component of the flume system. The portion of the project’s area of potential effect that would affect the segment O1-11 of the historic resource (the El Monte Tunnel and the associated entrances) would be required to be developed following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to ensure avoid adverse impacts to the resource, as described in mitigation measure ECAWP Cul-1.
O1-12 While it is true that the proposed pipeline would add a visible component to the hillside, its appearance would not be out of character compared to existing conditions because, during final design, parameters would be developed (such as using paint coatings that visually blend with the background) so that the appearance of the new pipeline would be visually compatible with the surrounding vegetation and could potentially be less visible than the existing O1-12 pipeline from El Monte Road. Further, the hillside where the proposed pipeline would be located is not in itself a significant visual resource and El Monte Road is not designated as a scenic roadway. Regarding the section of the pipeline along the flume trail, the pipeline would have a vertical profile of approximately three feet. The pipeline would not impede views of the surrounding hillsides to El Monte Valley, Hanson Pond, or El Cajon Mountain for users of the Historic Flume O1-13 Trail, and no impacts to scenic vistas would occur. The District is coordinating and meeting with County DPR and will continue to do so throughout the final design process (see response D-20 regarding the District’s meeting with County DPR). O1-14 O1-15 O1-13 Temporary construction access to the Historic Flume Trail and El Monte Tunnel is O1-16 analyzed in the IS/MND and is to be provided from the Lake Jennings area including Bass Drive/Bass Road, the Lake Jennings Campground, and Lake Jennings Shore Road. Temporary construction access is currently proposed from these roads just north of Half Moon Cove to the Flume Trail area. Potentially significant noise O1-17 impacts are identified for this construction access, and in accordance with mitigation measure ECAWP Noi-7, a Lake Jennings Construction Traffic Plan would be implemented to reduce the noise impacts to less than significant.
RTC-61 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-13 (cont.) For the section of pipeline replacing the existing above-ground pipeline between the dechlorination facility and the Historic Flume Trail, a winch could be used to pull the pipe up the hillside. The exact methods would be determined by the contractor, who would develop means and measures to implement during construction while abiding by the parameters of this IS/MND.
O1-14 Temporary visual impacts related with construction would be short-term and effects would be mitigated with measure CFMP Aes-1, which requires implementation of construction visual disturbance minimization measures and restoration to original site conditions. Long term visual impacts would not be significant, as discussed in Section I of the IS/MND.
O1-15 The amount of vibration will depend on the equipment that is used, which would be determined by the contractor prior to the start of construction activities. Vibration impacts are discussed in Section XII.b of the IS/MND, where a vibratory roller, typically the piece of equipment that generates the highest amount of vibration, is used to estimate vibration levels. Based upon that analysis, vibration impacts from general construction equipment would be below Caltrans threshold and therefore less than significant due to the distance between construction activities and the closest vibration sensitive land use. However, impacts associated with blasting operations were assessed to be potentially significant and the project would implement mitigation measure CFMP Noi-3 that would require a blasting and geotechnical consultant to prepare a plan and monitor activities to reduce any damage caused by vibration.
O1-16 Impacts associated with erosion are discussed in the Geology section of the IS/MND (Section VI) and runoff impacts are discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the IS/MND (Section IX). Erosion control measures will be established during final design of the AWP pipeline consistent with the project specific stormwater pollution prevention plan and relevant project permits. The section of the pipeline that would be above-ground would rest on saddle supports and would not obstruct existing flow paths.
O1-17 As noted on page 16 of the IS/MND, the CFMP PEIR is available for review at the District’s headquarters, and is also available on the District’s website, at the following link: https://www.padredam.org/DocumentCenter/View/2581/Padre- Dam-Master-Plan-PEIR-FINAL?bidId. The project-specific IS/MND is a second-tier document, and it is acceptable to incorporate information from the PEIR by reference.
RTC-62 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-17 (cont.) For the section of pipeline replacing the existing above-ground pipeline between the dechlorination facility and the Historic Flume Trail, a winch could be used to pull the pipe up the hillside. The exact methods would be determined by the contractor, who would develop means and measures to implement during construction while abiding by the parameters of this IS/MND.
Mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1B requires rare plant surveys to be conducted for projects within the Master Plan if they have the potential to impact suitable habitat for rare plant species. That requirement of the measure was completed for the proposed project. Because the rare plant surveys did identify the presence of special status species within the project area, the project would be required to implement the remainder of measure CFMP Bio-1B, which requires rare plant avoidance and mitigation. This is noted in the included quote on page 35 of the Draft IS/MND, “any inadvertent and unavoidable impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1B from the CFMP PEIR.” To provide clarification of the avoidance and mitigation required for rare plant impacts, the relevant portion of CFMP Bio-1B has been added to the Final IS/MND, as follows (added text is underlined):
The following PEIR mitigation measure, CFMP Bio-1B, would reduce potential impacts related to rare plants to a less than significant level. As the rare plant surveys have already been prepared, and as it has been determined that CFMP Bio-1D and Bio-1E would not be applicable to the proposed project, those portions of CFMP Bio-1B have been removed.
CFMP Bio-1B Rare Plant Avoidance and Mitigation. If a significant population of rare plant species with CNPS California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B is identified within a project impact area, then to the extent feasible to implement the project, the District shall avoid impacts to the population through project-level design changes and/or construction methods (e.g., trenchless installation of pipelines). The significance of the population shall be determined by the District- retained qualified biologist and analyzed during the project-level CEQA documentation, unless otherwise determined in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW.
If complete avoidance is determined not to be feasible, then the District shall restrict and minimize impacts to no more than 20 percent of the population, which is consistent with the regional standards identified for the MSCP. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts shall include one or a combination of the following and occur
RTC-63 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-17 (cont.)
at a 1:1 to 3:1 ratio, depending on the sensitivity of the species and population size, as determined by the District-retained qualified biologist:
a. Purchase of preservation credits of occupied habitat from a conservation bank approved by the USFWS and CDFW;
b. Acquisition and preservation of off-site mitigation land containing occupied
habitat; and/or
c. Preparation and implementation of a rare plant salvage and relocation plan, to include the following requirements, at a minimum:
i. Evaluation of options for plant salvage and relocation, including native
plant mulching, selective soil salvaging, application of plant materials on
manufactured slopes, and application/relocation of resources within
existing or proposed preserved lands;
ii. Seed collection and/or transplantation to a suitable receptor site based on the most reliable methods of successful relocation;
iii. Recommendation for method of salvage and relocation/application
based on feasibility of implementation and likelihood of success; and
iv. Implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures.
RTC-64 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-18 Construction on Vine Street and Mapleview Street would occur during construction of the AWP pipeline. Per the Project Description in the IS/MND, construction of the pipeline would occur at a pace of approximately 30 to 40 feet per work area per day (the contractor may use slightly more than 30 to 40 feet per day of roadway to prepare the next sections of the roadway). This would mean O1-17 that the duration of pipeline construction in any one area or street would be cont. temporary. For example, each individual parking spot would be anticipated to be unavailable for approximately one day of construction.
In addition, as shown in Table 9-2 of the CTA, Mapleview Street/Lake Jennings Road was analyzed for impacts from the addition of project traffic and from the lower capacity of the roadway due to land closures during construction. The roadway was determined to operate at LOS B with project construction, which O1-18 would be a less than significant impact. The project would still implement mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1, which implements a Traffic Management Plan, for construction in this area. Measures to be implemented from this mitigation measure may include construction outside of the peak commuter hours.
Therefore, due to the temporary nature of project construction, the measures O1-19 listed in mitigation measure Tra-1, and the acceptable LOS that the roadways operate at, traffic impacts in the Mapleview Street/SR 67 area would be less than significant.
O1-19 Please see response O1-18. O1-20 O1-20 Please see response O1-18.
O1-21 Please see response O1-18. O1-21 O1-22 Dust control is addressed in the Project Description, where the IS/MND states that, “in compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, disturbed areas O1-22 would be watered during grading activities to retain dust within the property line.” Please also see response N-9.
O1-23 O1-23 Please see response N-3.
O1-24
RTC-65 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-24 Section IV(f) of the IS/MND discusses potential conflicts with an adopted habitat conservation plan. In acknowledgement of the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) subarea plan, the project would be located in disturbed and developed areas to the extent possible. The incorporation of mitigation measures included for biological resource impacts would ensure consistency with relevant conservation plans.
An alignment study was prepared to determine a recommended alignment for the AWP pipeline. Due to major utility conflicts in El Monte Road for a distance of 600 feet north of Laurel Canyon Road, it was determined that locating the AWP pipeline in this portion of El Monte Road would not be feasible. As such, it was determined that constructing the AWP pipeline from the terminus of Mapleview Street across undeveloped land to El Monte Road north of the utility conflicts was the preferred option. The District has met with the owner of the undeveloped land and they are amenable to providing the District with an easement to place the pipeline in this proposed alignment. The AWP pipeline is proposed to be located south of the Hanson El Monte Pond Restoration & Flood Control/Ground Water Recharge Project wetland habitat restoration area.
RTC-66 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O1-25 The treated water conveyed to the dechlorination facility would be near distilled water quality. The process to remove residual chlorine following disinfection is a common practice prior to discharging into receiving waters. This process does not O1-25 release discernable odors or odor impacts that would affect nearby residences.
O1-26 The dechlorination facility is currently proposed to be located at the site of the existing El Monte Pumphouse, as shown on Figure 6 of the IS/MND. The location O1-26 of this facility will be confirmed during final design. O1-27
O1-28 O1-27 The dechlorination facility is currently proposed to be a pre-engineered steel O1-29 building with a steel deck and steel beam roof as well as steel panel walls. The O1-30 appearance would be consistent with features in the area and the design criteria of this facility will be confirmed during final design.
O1-28 The dechlorination facility will be required to comply with the relevant process O1-31 and permitting requirements associated with the facility.
O1-29 The dechlorination facility building has been sized at 700 square feet (35 feet long x 20 feet wide), which is sufficient to house two 8-foot diameter (2,000 gallon) O1-32 chemical storage tanks, two chemical metering pumps and all other required ancillary equipment and appurtenances.
O1-30 Sodium bisulfite (38% concentration) would be the chemical that is used for O1-33 dechlorination.
O1-31 An evaluation was performed on different alignments that considered criteria including community impacts, environmental considerations and permitting, constructability, cost, and right-of-way. A recommended alignment was selected for implementation based on the results of the evaluation, and the recommended alignment is presented in this IS/MND.
O1-32 Please see response H-3 and previous responses within this letter.
O1-33 Please see response K-1.
RTC-67 COMMENTS RESPONSES
O2-1 See response O1-12. Additionally, the pipeline along the Historic Flume Trail is O2-1 conservatively assumed and analyzed in the IS/MND to be above-ground based on the potential geological conditions in the area of the Historic Flume Trail, which may include strong volcanic rock that can be very difficult to excavate. Geotechnical borings and additional data are needed to determine the feasibility of installing the pipeline below-ground. Should it be determined that the geotechnical conditions are favorable for installing the pipeline below-ground, it would be the preference of the District to do so.
RTC-68 COMMENTS RESPONSES
P-1 Please see responses D-25 and D-28 regarding the visual details for the AWP pipeline, response O1-4 regarding the location of the pipeline on the hillside bench; response G-4 regarding security of the pipeline. The pipeline would not be fenced, and full access to the Historic Flume Trail would be restored following P-1 construction of the pipeline.
P-2 Please see response O1-4 regarding the location on the bench. The District does not propose any permanent access changes to the flume trail or staging area near the El Monte Pump Station. While these components would be temporarily unavailable during project construction, full access would be restored once the pipeline is installed. Helix Water District does not propose any changes to the easement conditions for the flume trail.
P-2 P-3 The flume bench is located on AWP Program partner Helix Water District’s property. The County DPR has a trail easement along the flume bench. Under the terms and conditions of the trail easement, Helix Water District reserves the right to install piping and appurtenant structures and utilities in or across the area. Additionally, the County is also a partner on the program and has been engaged in the development of the proposed facilities. The District will continue its coordination with the County DPR to address temporary trail access concerns during construction activities. P-3
RTC-69 COMMENTS RESPONSES
P-4 The District will coordinate with the County DPR to ensure adequate width is P-3 available for recreational use after the pipeline is installed. At a minimum, the trail cont. would be restored to the current existing width. The District will continue its coordination with the County DPR in the final design of the pipeline.
P-4 P-5 The pipeline is currently proposed to be located on the southernmost side of the Historic Flume Trail bench. The width of the pipeline, including saddle structures, would be approximately three feet. The District is coordinating and meeting with County DPR and will continue to do so throughout the design process regarding access to the trail. During final design, design criteria and measures would be P-5 developed to blend the pipeline in with the natural vegetation and hillside. Water would be flowing through the pipe at a relatively slow speed (approximately 4 miles per hour). In addition, the AWP pipeline would be constructed using steel pipe. The slow speed of the water and steel pipe would lessen noise levels to a level that would not be anticipated to create a reaction from horses. The District P-6 will work with County DPR to ensure appropriate features will be installed to maintain safety.
P-7 P-6 The District and its project partner, Helix Water District, has no intention to restrict any of the currently allowed recreational uses of the trail. Access to the P-8 trail would be fully restored upon project completion.
P-7 As required by the trail easement agreement, the proposed project would be required to repair any damage to the easement caused by the project. It is not anticipated the pipeline will require frequent repair or maintenance. The public would be notified when maintenance activities are required. The project will coordinate these maintenance activities with the County DPR. P-9 P-8 Regarding the AWP program, public outreach has been ongoing since 2014, including extensive media coverage of the program and its demonstration project. The District held a meeting with the Lakeside community during public review of the project on October 3, 2018, as well as two public meetings held on September 27 and October 2, 2018. Please see response K-3 regarding outreach efforts conducted during public review of the project.
P-9 The trail itself is not considered a scenic resource; what makes the trail scenic are the views from the trail. While it is true that the proposed pipeline would be visible to trail users, the assessment of a visual impact is dependent on whether the project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The pipeline would not impede views of the surrounding scenic resources including
RTC-70 COMMENTS RESPONSES
P-9 (cont.) El Monte Valley, Hanson Pond, or El Cajon Mountain for users of the Historic Flume Trail, and no impacts to scenic vistas would occur. Further, during final design, design criteria and measures would be developed to be compatible with P-10 the natural vegetation. The District is coordinating and meeting with County DPR and will continue to do so throughout the final design process.
P-10 The Historic Flume Trail is 1.5 miles in length, with varying topography. The proposed pipeline would not be visible to trail users along every location on the trail, however it would be visible along an approximately 1,100-foot portion of the trail. Therefore, the statement in the IS/MND is correct. Please see response P-9 regarding the significance of the visual impact. P-11 P-11 Disturbance to the trail easement at Hanson Pond would be remediated within the impacted area following pipeline installation. Additionally, the District will coordinate with County DPR regarding the pipeline alignment to minimize impacts to trail access or trail user experience during construction activities. The District does not anticipate any impacts to the access or trail experience after the pipeline is installed.
RTC-71 COMMENTS RESPONSES
Q-1 The path of the AWP pipeline has been shown in the IS/MND as a corridor that the pipeline would be located within. The exact location and footprint of the AWP pipeline within this corridor would be determined during final design. During final design, the District will consult with the commenter regarding impacts to the Q-1 property or road easement to address concerns and does not anticipate affecting any private property without owner involvement. Following the proposed construction activities, the District and its project partners are committed to restore any impacts to its original or better conditions.
Q-2 Parameters regarding construction noise levels for the contractor and design engineer to follow are established within the performance standards and noise reduction measures identified within mitigation measures CFMP Noi-4, CFMP Noi-5, and ECAWP Noi-5. As part of ECAWP Noi-5, construction noise shall not Q-2 exceed 75 dBA LEQ (8 hour) as measured at the nearest noise-sensitive land use, which would be accomplished using a 6- to 10-foot noise barrier (e.g., using typical trenching construction equipment, with an 8-foot noise barrier construction noise levels would be below 75 dBA LEQ [8 hour] at a distance of 34 feet). Per the Project Description in the IS/MND, construction of the pipeline would occur at a pace of approximately 30 to 40 feet per work area per day (the contractor may use slightly more than 30 to 40 feet per day of roadway to prepare Q-3 the next sections of the roadway). This would mean that the duration of pipeline construction near the commenter’s house would be temporary and is estimated to be within 100 to 200 feet of the house for approximately two weeks. In addition, per CFMP Noi-5, a public liaison will be identified to respond to concerns of neighboring residents about noise and other construction disturbances.
Q-4 The contractor would not be anticipated to stage equipment on private property and would be restricted from doing so unless given permission by the property owner.
Q-3 Please see response N-3 regarding the El Monte Sand Mine project.
RTC-72 COMMENTS RESPONSES
Q-4 See responses above. The District will consult with the commenter regarding impacts to the property or road easement to address concerns. Following the proposed construction activities, the District and its project partners are committed to restore any impacts to its original or better conditions.
RTC-73 COMMENTS RESPONSES
R-1 The District will consult with the commenter regarding impacts to the property or road easement to address concerns. Following the proposed construction activities, the District and its project partners are committed to restore any impacts to its original or better conditions. R-1
RTC-74 COMMENTS RESPONSES
S-1 Potential impacts to air quality are addressed in Section III of the IS/MND. As noted therein, the project would not exceed screening level thresholds established by the SDAPCD and impacts would be less than significant. Impacts related to air pollutant emissions during potential blasting events would be mitigated with measure CFMP Air-1. For additional information regarding why an EIR is not necessary, please see response K-1. S-1 S-2 Potential impacts related to noise are addressed in Section XII of the IS/MND, which identifies potential impacts related to construction and operational noise. The project would be required to implement mitigation measures CFMP Noi-2, CFMP Noi-4, CFMP Noi-5, ECAWP Noi-1 through Noi-7 for mitigation measures to be implemented to address construction and operational noise levels.
S-3 Construction truck noise is evaluated in the impact section of Section XII of the S-2 IS/MND. Use of a dump truck, in coordination with other construction equipment, may increase noise levels above local construction noise thresholds. Mitigation measures CFMP Noi-4 and Noi-5 and ECAWP Noi-5 would be implemented to reduce these noise levels below thresholds.
S-3
RTC-75 COMMENTS RESPONSES
S-4 Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1F would reduce potentially significant impacts on nesting birds and raptors to less than significant levels. Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1I includes measures to protect S-3 active California gnatcatcher and/or least Bell’s vireo nest sites from noise impacts cont. during construction, which would reduce related impacts to a less-than-significant level.
S-5 Up to three work areas may be under construction at any given time, and lane closures would only occur around active work areas; therefore, the entirety of S-4 Mast Boulevard and Fanita Parkway would not be reduced to one lane for the duration of pipeline installation. Mitigation measure ECAWP Tra-1 requires a comprehensive Traffic Management Plan to address temporary traffic impacts associated with pipeline installation in the road.
S-6 Temporary lighting during construction would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Aes-1, which requires construction lighting to be shielded or directed away from adjacent residences. S-5 Implementation of mitigation measure CFMP Aes-4 would require security lighting for the Ray Stoyer WRF facility to be low illumination, shielded, and directed downward to prevent light and glare from affecting neighboring properties, thus reducing potential significant impacts from security lighting to a less-than- significant level.
S-7 Potential operational noise impacts from projects facilities are analyzed under Section XII.a. Potentially significant impacts are identified from noise generated by S-6 the Ray Stoyer WRF (including headworks), AWTP Facility, SHERF, and EMG Pump Station, and these impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures CFMP Noi-2 and ECAWP Noi-1, Noi-2, Noi-3, and Noi-4.
S-7
RTC-76 COMMENTS RESPONSES
S-8 Potential impacts to air quality are addressed in Section III of the IS/MND. As discussed under Section III.b, flaring of biogas, in addition to other operational S-8 activities of the project was modeled to determine estimated daily emissions of criteria air pollutants and was found not to exceed screening level thresholds established by SDAPCD.
S-9 The system of ponds is designated by the Army Corps of Engineers and SWRCB as part of the treatment system. Therefore, it is not a natural water body or designated as a water of the U.S. and these systems can be taken off line or removed as necessary to meet the communities’ water and wastewater needs. The draining of the ponds would not directly or indirectly impact sensitive habitat as it is absent from the pond area, and pond draining would also not result in direct impacts on special-status animal species as none are expected to S-9 permanently reside in or use the aquatic habitat for breeding. Similarly, none of the special-status animal species with potential to occur would be expected to use the ponds for foraging or other temporary activities. As such, none would be displaced, stranded, or at a loss of foraging opportunities as a result of the draining of the ponds. Common (non-sensitive) animal species could be temporarily affected by the pond draining, but potential impacts on common species would be less than significant since these species are not considered sensitive. In addition, Santee Lakes would be unaffected by the drying out of the ponds.
S-10 Potential construction noise impacts from projects facilities are analyzed under Section XII.a. Potentially significant impacts are identified from construction noise, S-10 and these impacts would be mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measures CFMP Noi-3, Noi-4, and Noi-5, and ECAWP Noi-5 though Noi-7.
RTC-77 COMMENTS RESPONSES
S-11 Locations of project construction and operation are discussed in the Project Description and shown on IS/MND figures. Hours of operation are discussed S-11 throughout the IS/MND where relevant.
S-12 Economic issues such as water bill rates are not an environmental issue that are required to be analyzed under CEQA. However, the District and its project S-12 partners are continuing to evaluate the financial feasibility of this project in a comprehensive manner. One of the key drivers of this project is long term rate S-13 payer affordability against rising imported water costs.
S-14 S-13 Please see response S-8.
S-14 The District has standard operating procedures in case of a pipe break. A sewer
pipe rupture is specifically discussed in Section VIII.a. Such a rupture could be a
potentially significant hazardous materials release. This impact would be
mitigated to less than significant through mitigation measure CFMP Haz-1.
S-15 S-15 The issues listed in the comment are discussed through the IS/MND (air quality,
Section III; noise/beeping trucks, Section XII; lighting, Section I.d; wildlife; Section
IV). Where potentially significant impacts are identified, they would be mitigated
to a less-than-significant impact.
S-16 The water produced by the project is not grey water. Rather, it is a highly treated
and regulated water using advanced treatment processes including membrane
filtration, reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation, and free chlorine disinfection. The
resulting water quality is near distilled.
S-16 With regards to the safety of the water from this project, the AWTP Facility will be
regulated by the Division of Drinking Water and SWRCB. The permit for this
project will include stringent requirements to ensure public health protection
including elimination of contaminants of concern.
RTC-78 COMMENTS RESPONSES
T-1 Economic issues such as water bill rates are not an environmental issue that is required to be analyzed under CEQA. However, the District and its project T-1 partners are continuing to evaluate the financial feasibility of this project in a comprehensive manner. One of the key drivers of this project is long term rate payer affordability against rising imported water costs.
For additional information regarding why an EIR is not necessary, please see response K-1.
RTC-79 COMMENTS RESPONSES
U-1 CEQA does not require recording of public meetings (please see also response K-3). The water produced by the AWTP Facility is a highly treated and regulated water using advanced treatment processes including membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation, and free chlorine disinfection. The resulting water quality is near distilled. The AWTP Facility would be regulated by the Division of Drinking Water and SWRCB. The permit for this project would include stringent requirements to ensure public health protection including elimination of contaminants of concern. U-1 The project would be designed to meet all applicable structural and electrical reliability requirements and codes for essential facilities under the responsibility of a licensed engineer. This project would also provide a new local water supply in the event of an earthquake that has an impact on the region’s ability to import water. There would be multiple electrical backup components as part of this project to ensure treatment reliability.
CEQA requires an evaluation of environmental impacts and cost is, therefore, not addressed in the IS/MND. However, the District and its project partners are continuing to evaluate the financial feasibility of this project in a comprehensive manner. One of the key drivers of this project is long term rate payer affordability against rising imported water costs.
RTC-80 COMMENTS RESPONSES
V-1 The District appreciates the commenter’s support of the project. V-1
RTC-81 COMMENTS RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank
RTC-82 Appendix J Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Padre Dam Municipal Water District East County Advanced Water Purification Project MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the severity and magnitude of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with project development. To ensure that the mitigation measures identified in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) are implemented, the public agency adopts a program for monitoring and reporting the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant effects [Section 15097 (a)]. The State CEQA Guidelines require that a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) be adopted at the same time that the MND is adopted.
According to Section 15097(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. Monitoring is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. This program identifies the party responsible for implementing the action, the timing for the implementation of each measure, and the procedure for documenting the mitigation efforts.
The Padre Dam Municipal Water District (District) is responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the measures during design and construction of the East County Advanced Water Purification (ECAWP) project components unless otherwise stated herein. Table 1, MMRP Summary, provides a summary of the mitigation measures required as part of the project MND, including the responsible party, mitigation timing, and monitoring and reporting procedure. References to “contractor” as responsible party imply they are generally under contract to the District staff that are ultimately responsible. A reference to a “qualified consultant” as a responsible party implies they are generally under contract to the District staff that are ultimately responsible. The District may impose requirements for implementation of the measures on other parties responsible for constructing ECAWP project components that would require approval from the District.
The District may modify how it will implement a mitigation measure, as long as the alternative means of implementing the mitigation still achieves the same or greater attenuation of the impact.
Page 1 of 38
East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date AESTHETICS CFMP Aes-1 Construction Visual Disturbance Minimization Measures. The following District, contractor Incorporated into District to confirm measures would be incorporated into the design and construction of project construction review on project components that involve ground disturbance or construction within trails to minimize documents plans and potential effects on aesthetics to neighborhoods surrounding the projects: during project contractor to design confirm conditions • Demolition debris will be removed in a timely manner for off-site disposal. upon completion Implemented • Tree and vegetation removal will be limited to the extent needed to facilitate of construction during project construction and access to the site. construction • Construction lighting will be shielded or directed away from adjacent residences. Disturbed areas • All roadway and trail features (signs, pavement delineation, roadway surfaces, are to be etc.) and structures will be protected, maintained in a temporary condition, or restored post restored. construction
• Disturbed areas will be restored following construction consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation. If removed vegetation included invasive plant species, the restored area shall be revegetated with a mix of native, non-invasive plants that are compatible with the surrounding setting. If necessary, a temporary irrigation system will be installed and maintained by the District, or watering trucks will be used at a frequency to be determined by the District to maintain successful plant growth. For proposed CFMP 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. CFMP Aes-4 Shielding for Security Lighting. To reduce impacts related to creating a District, contractor During project District to confirm new source of lighting, new security lighting for the proposed project will be low design incorporation of illumination, shielded, and directed downward to prevent light and glare from affecting measures on neighboring properties. design plans
Page 2 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date AIR QUALITY CFMP Air-1 Site-Specific Air Quality Analysis Related to Blasting. Prior to the District-approved Analysis to be District-approved commencement of blasting activities, the District shall require the preparation of a qualified air prepared prior to air quality project-specific air quality impact analysis by a qualified air quality consultant if project quality consultant blasting activities consultant to construction involves blasting to verify that blasting emissions are less than the daily confirm whether SDAPCD significance thresholds listed in Table 4.2-4 of the PEIR. If blasting results in measures are exceedances of emissions thresholds, the District shall implement additional measures required to limit to reduce emissions to within SDAPCD daily screening level thresholds. These measures blasting emissions may include reducing the size, extent, or number of blasting events on a given day. The to daily limits. If specific additional measures, if required, shall be determined by the qualified air quality required, District consultant based on the results of the final air quality analysis. If the measures are to confirm unable to reduce emissions to within SDAPCD daily screening level thresholds, no restrictions are blasting shall occur. In this scenario, any substitute method for blasting shall also have included on an air quality analysis performed as described above that demonstrates the emissions construction would be within SDAPCD screening level thresholds. documents. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CFMP Bio-1B Rare Plant Avoidance and Mitigation. If a significant population of rare District, District- During For avoidance, plant species with CNPS California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B is identified within a approved qualified construction for District-approved project impact area, then to the extent feasible to implement the project, the District biologist, avoidance; for qualified biologist shall avoid impacts to the population through project-level design changes and/or contractor compensation, to verify construction methods (e.g., trenchless installation of pipelines). The significance of the per resource compliance with population shall be determined by the District-retained qualified biologist and analyzed agency permit measures. during the project-level CEQA documentation, unless otherwise determined in requirements (as For compensatory consultation with the USFWS and CDFW. applicable) or in a mitigation, District timely manner If complete avoidance is determined not to be feasible, then the District shall restrict to confirm and minimize impacts to no more than 20 percent of the population, which is consistent recordation in with the regional standards identified for the MSCP. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts mitigation bank shall include one or a combination of the following and occur at a 1:1 to 3:1 ratio, and note in project depending on the sensitivity of the species and population size, as determined by the environmental District-retained qualified biologist: documentation.
Page 3 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) CFMP Bio-1B Rare Plant Avoidance and Mitigation (cont.) a. Purchase of preservation credits of occupied habitat from a conservation bank approved by the USFWS and CDFW; b. Acquisition and preservation of off-site mitigation land containing occupied habitat; and/or c. Preparation and implementation of a rare plant salvage and relocation plan, to include the following requirements, at a minimum:
i. Evaluation of options for plant salvage and relocation, including native plant mulching, selective soil salvaging, application of plant materials on manufactured slopes, and application/relocation of resources within existing or proposed preserved lands;
ii. Seed collection and/or transplantation to a suitable receptor site based on the most reliable methods of successful relocation;
iii. Recommendation for method of salvage and relocation/application based on feasibility of implementation and likelihood of success; and d. Implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. CFMP Bio-1F Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent direct impacts to District-approved Within seven District to confirm nesting birds, including raptors, protected under the federal MBTA and CFG Code, the qualified biologist, days prior to measure is in bid District shall enforce the following: contractor construction packages activities if during Project activities requiring the removal and/or trimming of vegetation suitable for bird breeding District-approved nesting birds shall occur outside of the general bird breeding season (January 15 to season qualified biologist September 15) to the extent feasible. If the activities cannot avoid the general bird to provide breeding season, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a pre-activity
Page 4 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) CFMP Bio-1F Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors (cont.) Contractor to confirmation of submit nesting bird survey nesting bird survey within seven days prior to the activities to confirm the presence or construction results to District. absence of active bird nests. If no active bird nests are found by the qualified biologist, schedule for then the activities shall proceed with the reassurance that no violation to the MBTA and approval at start CFG Code would occur. If an active bird nest is found by the qualified biologist, then of construction vegetation removal and/or trimming activities at the nest location shall not be allowed to occur until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. Avoidance buffers should start at 300 feet for passerine birds and 500 feet for raptors. However, buffers could be reduced at the discretion of the qualified biologist depending on the bird species and project activities required in the vicinity of the active nest. CFMP Bio-1H Orange Construction Fencing and Construction Monitoring. The District District-approved During District-approved shall retain a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities and supervise the qualified biologist, construction qualified biologist installation of temporary orange construction fencing, which clearly delineates the edge contractor to confirm that of the approved limits of grading and clearing, and the edges of environmentally measures were sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. This fencing shall be installed implemented prior to construction and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Fencing during shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. Once fencing construction. is installed, the District and qualified biologist shall determine the need for additional inspections and monitoring activities throughout the duration of construction. If determined necessary by the District and qualified biologist, monitoring shall include inspection of construction work areas, including staging and storage areas, to confirm that activities are kept within the approved limits and that Best Management Practices are in place to prevent incidental animal entrapment and burrow and nest establishment within equipment and staged materials. Monitoring shall also include pre- activity surveys of construction and staging areas each morning on active construction sites to confirm special-status species remain absent from work areas. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, or if a trapped animal or burrow or nest is found, work in the affected areas shall cease until
Page 5 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) CFMP Bio-1H Orange Construction Fencing and Construction Monitoring (cont.) the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified by the District and qualified biologist. Temporary orange fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction of the project. Implementation of this measure shall be verified by the District prior to and concurrent with construction. CFMP Bio-1I Construction-Related Noise. If construction begins during the general District-approved During District-approved breeding season (January 15 to September 15), construction noise could affect the qualified biologist, construction qualified biologist breeding of the coastal California gnatcatcher and/or least Bell’s vireo. No loud contractor to confirm construction noise (exceeding an hourly average of 60 dBA, or 3 dBA above hourly compliance with average ambient noise levels at the nesting site, whichever is higher) may take place noise limits within 500 feet of active nesting sites during the general breeding season (January 15 to September 15). Noise levels may be mitigated with a noise control barrier. The noise barriers may be 10 feet in height and be located between the facilities’ construction operations and adjacent sensitive habitat to the east and west of the project construction site. The barriers shall be solid and may be constructed of masonry, wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those materials, with no cracks or gaps through or below the wall. Any seams or cracks should be filled or caulked. If wood is used, it can be tongue and groove or close butted seams and be at least ¾-inch thick or have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per SF. Sheet metal of 18 gauge (minimum) may be used, if it meets the other criteria and is properly supported and stiffened so that it does not rattle or create noise itself from vibration or wind. Noise blankets, hoods, or covers also may be used, provided they are appropriately implemented to provide the required sound attenuation.
Page 6 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) CFMP Bio-1J Construction Staging Areas. The District shall design final project District-approved During project District-approved construction staging areas such that no staging areas shall be located within sensitive qualified biologist, design if within qualified biologist habitat areas. The construction contractor shall receive approval by the District prior to contractor project to confirm staging mobilization and staging of equipment outside of the project boundaries. boundaries areas Prior to construction if outside of project boundaries CFMP Bio-1K Contractor Training. The District shall retain a qualified biologist to District-approved Prior to District-approved provide environmental awareness training by attending pre-construction meetings to qualified biologist, construction qualified biologist inform construction crews of the sensitive resources and associated avoidance and/or contractor to confirm that minimization requirements. This will also include training for new crewmembers who training for join the project crew after construction begins. The training shall educate crews on the workers occurred 12 special status species with high potential to occur in the project area. The crews will prior to them be informed to not interfere with these species if seen, and to contact the qualified performing biologist immediately for additional avoidance and minimization measures. construction CFMP Bio-2A Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities. District, District- Per resource District to confirm The District shall compensate the loss of habitat according to the ratios provided in the approved qualified agency permit recordation in table below, which could be adjusted during project-level studies and in coordination biologist requirements (as mitigation bank with the project biologist depending on where the compensatory mitigation would be applicable) or in a and note in project located and whether the impacted habitat supports special-status species or other timely manner environmental sensitive resources. Mitigation for Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, and documentation open water shall not be adjusted below a 1:1 mitigation ratio consistent with the no-net- loss standard, unless otherwise conditioned in permits and/or discretionary approvals issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as applicable.
Page 7 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) CFMP Bio-2A (cont.) MITIGATION RATIOS FOR IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Sensitive Natural Community Mitigation Ratio Non-native grassland 0.5:1 Diegan coastal sage scrub 2:1 Southern willow scrub 3:1 Open water 1:1 1 Freshwater Marsh impacts are limited to the Lake Jennings shoreline, which is primarily inundated and characterized by partially submerged vegetation (Typha sp., Scirpus sp.) and as such will be mitigated in accordance with ratios assigned to Open Water.
CFMP Bio-3B Regulatory Permitting. Potentially significant impacts to jurisdictional District, District- Per resource District to confirm waters and/or wetlands would occur at Lake Jennings as a result of the installation of the approved qualified agency permit permitting was Lake Jennings inlet and aeration blower components of the project; therefore, the biologist requirements (as conducted District shall complete the following: applicable) or in a timely manner • Prepare and submit notification to the USACE for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the U.S. pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 404;
• Prepare and submit a Clean Water Act Section 401 Request for Water Quality Certification or State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Report of Waste Discharge to the RWQCB for unavoidable impacts to Waters of the State; and
• Prepare and submit a CFG Code Section 1602 Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration to the CDFW for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional streambed and riparian habitat.
Page 8 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) CFMP Bio-3B Regulatory Permitting (cont.)
• The District shall mitigate impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetland in accordance with mitigation measure CFMP Bio-3C, unless otherwise specified in USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW regulatory permits. CFMP Bio-3C Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources. The District, District- Per resource District to confirm District shall implement compensatory mitigation at a minimum ratio of 1:1, which could approved qualified agency permit compensatory be adjusted during permitting with the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, for the unavoidable biologist requirements (as mitigation was loss of jurisdictional waters and wetlands, which would include one or a combination of applicable) or in a conducted the following measures: timely manner
• Purchase of preservation, establishment, re-establishment, rehabilitation and/or enhancement credits from a mitigation bank approved by the USACE and CDFW, such as the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank or another approved mitigation bank in the region.
• Implement Permittee-responsible preservation, establishment, re-establishment, rehabilitation and/or enhancement at an on- or off-site location approved by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW, including preparation and implementation of a conceptual mitigation plan, habitat mitigation monitoring plan, restoration plan, and/or long-term management plan, unless otherwise specified by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW.
• Plans for restoration or revegetation should include, at a minimum: (a) the location of the mitigation site; (b) the plant species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) a schematic depicting the mitigation area; (d) planting schedule; (e) a description of the irrigation methodology; (f) measures to control exotic vegetation on site; (g) specific success criteria; (h) a detailed monitoring program; (i) contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and (j) identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation.
Page 9 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) CFMP Bio-3C Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources (cont.)
• A conservation easement, restrictive covenant, or other protection shall be recorded over the mitigation area and the area shall be managed in perpetuity in accordance with the long-term management plan, unless otherwise specified by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW. ECAWP Bio-1 Avoidance of Rare Plants. Prior to initiating construction activities, the District-approved During design for Compliance report District shall require that the delicate clarkia and/or San Diego goldenstar locations qualified biologist, depiction on by District- depicted on Figure 8d and Figure 8l of the Biological Resources Technical Letter contractor plans approved qualified (Appendix C) are clearly shown on final construction plans. The District shall further biologist to be During require that the locations are demarcated in the field by a qualified biologist and provided to District construction for protected-in-place through the installation of temporary construction fencing or monitoring alternative means that are approved by the qualified biologist. The qualified biologist shall monitor construction activities, as appropriate, to help ensure avoidance of the areas. A final compliance report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and submitted to the District for record verifying that no impacts occurred to the species. Any inadvertent and unavoidable impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with mitigation measure CFMP Bio-1B from the CFMP PEIR. ECAWP Bio-2 Pre-Construction Gnatcatcher Surveys. If construction activities are District-approved Within seven Documentation of planned to occur during the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 15 to USFWS permitted days prior to survey to be September 15), then prior to initiating construction activities within 500 feet of off-site biologist construction provided to District coastal California gnatcatcher locations depicted on Figures 8a, 8b, 8j, 8l, and 8m of activities if during Appendix C, the District shall retain a USFWS-permitted biologist to conduct pre- gnatcatcher construction surveys to confirm the presence or absence of the species. The surveys breeding season shall begin a maximum of seven days prior to project construction, and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. If gnatcatchers are confirmed to be absent within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then no additional measures shall be required. If gnatcatchers are confirmed to be present, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-3.
Page 10 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) ECAWP Bio-3 Avoidance of Gnatcatcher Breeding Season. If the results of pre- District-approved During District-approved construction surveys from Mitigation Measure ECAWP Bio-2 determine the presence of qualified biologist, construction qualified biologist coastal California gnatcatcher within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then contractor to coordinate construction activities at these locations shall be completed outside of the gnatcatcher construction breeding season (February 15 to August 31). If activities at these locations cannot avoid activities based on the gnatcatcher breeding season, then the District shall implement required monitoring survey results pursuant to mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H and CFMP Bio-1I. developed as part of ECAWP Bio-2. If, after implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H and CFMP Bio-1I, construction noise levels during the gnatcatcher breeding season cannot be reduced below a 60 dBA hourly average from the edge of occupied gnatcatcher habitat, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-4. ECAWP Bio-4 USFWS Consultation and Conservation Measures. The District and/or District, District- Prior to District to confirm federal action agency for the project shall consult with the USFWS regarding project- approved qualified construction for measures were related adverse effects to the coastal California gnatcatcher and/or least Bell’s vireo, as biologist consultation and implemented. appropriate. At a minimum, the following conservation measures shall be implemented development of by the District, unless otherwise prescribed by the USFWS: plan
• Prepare and implement a USFWS-approved plan to avoid disturbing nesting During gnatcatchers and/or vireos, including construction and implementation of noise construction for attenuation (e.g., sound walls, berms, blankets, etc.), monitoring noise levels to implementation ensure that they are less than 60 dBA, and nest monitoring; of plan/ measures. • Retain USFWS-approved biological monitor to conduct contractor training, monitor construction activities, and oversee installation and inspection of temporary fencing and erosion control measures; halt work, if necessary, and confer with the USFWS to ensure the proper implementation of species and habitat protection measures; and submit monthly reports (including photographs of impact areas) via regular mail or email to the USFWS during monitoring.
Page 11 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) ECAWP Bio-5 Pre-construction Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys. If construction activities are District-approved Within seven Documentation of planned to occur during the least Bell’s vireo breeding season (March 15 to September qualified biologist days prior to survey to be 15), then prior to initiating construction activities within 500 feet of off-site vireo construction provided to District locations depicted on Figures 8a, 8b, and 8l of Appendix C, or in any project construction activities if during by District- areas within 500 feet of least Bell’s vireo critical habitat, the District shall retain a gnatcatcher approved qualified qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction surveys to confirm the presence or breeding season biologist. absence of the species. The surveys shall begin a maximum of seven days prior to project construction, and one survey shall be conducted the day immediately prior to the initiation of work. If vireos are confirmed to be absent within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then no additional measures shall be required. If vireo are confirmed to be present, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-6. ECAWP Bio-6 Avoidance of Vireo Breeding Season. If the results of pre-construction District-approved During District-approved surveys from mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-5 determine the presence of least Bell’s qualified biologist, construction qualified biologist vireo within 500 feet of planned construction areas, then construction activities at these contractor to coordinate locations shall be completed outside of the vireo breeding season (March 15 to construction September 15). If activities at these locations cannot avoid the vireo breeding season, activities based on then the District shall implement required monitoring pursuant to mitigation measures survey results CFMP Bio-1H and CFMP Bio-1I. developed as part of ECAWP Bio-2. If, after implementation of mitigation measures CFMP Bio-1H and CFMP Bio-1I, construction noise levels during the vireo breeding season cannot be reduced below a 60 dBA hourly average from the edge of occupied vireo habitat, then the District shall implement mitigation measure ECAWP Bio-4. ECAWP Bio-7 Project-Level Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Natural District, District- Per resource District to confirm Communities. The District shall implement compensatory mitigation for permanent approved qualified agency permit compensatory impacts in accordance with the ratios from mitigation measure CFMP Bio-2A and biologist requirements (as mitigation was through one or a combination of the following measures: applicable) or in a conducted. timely manner • Purchase of off-site conservation credits from a conservation bank in the region;
Page 12 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) ECAWP Bio-7 Project-Level Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities (cont.)
• Implementation of on- and/or off-site habitat preservation, creation, restoration, and/or enhancement, including preparation and implementation of a conceptual mitigation plan, habitat mitigation monitoring plan, restoration plan, and/or long- term management plan. The mitigation areas shall be of equivalent or superior function as determined in consultation with a qualified biologist. The District shall restore or revegetate temporary impact areas at a 1:1 ratio through the preparation and implementation of a restoration plan, which shall include the following, as prepared by a qualified biologist or restoration specialist, at a minimum:
• Location of the restoration site;
• Plant species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates;
• Schematic depicting the restoration area;
• Planting schedule;
• Description of the irrigation methodology;
• Measures to control exotic vegetation on site;
• Specific success criteria;
• Monitoring program;
• Contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and
• Identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the mitigation.
Page 13 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date CULTURAL RESOURCES ECAWP Cul-1 Preservation of Historical Significance of the El Monte Tunnel of the San District-approved During project District to confirm Diego Flume. The portion of the AWP Pipeline through the El Monte Tunnel shall be qualified Historic design incorporation of designed in coordination with a qualified Historic Preservation Specialist and the State Preservation measures on
Historic Preservation Officer. Design measures following the Secretary of the Interior’s Specialist design plans Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be developed to avoid adverse impacts to the historical resource and preserve the character-defining features of the resource. Permanent impacts to the decorative exterior façades of the tunnel entrances shall be avoided and all measures and design options for the treatment of the resource shall be developed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Restoration, or Reconstruction, as appropriate. ECAWP Cul-2 Construction Monitoring and Recovery of Cultural Resources. During District During Construction project construction activities for the project, the District’s construction manager shall construction construction Manager to retain a qualified archaeologist that meets the standards identified in the District Native manager, District- document that American Sacred Resources Policy. A Native American monitor that meets the standards approved qualified monitoring was identified in the District Native American Sacred Resources Policy shall also be retained. archaeologist conducted and The archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be present to monitor initial recovery, if ground disturbance for the project for all open-cut trenching activities and excavations required, complies for the launching and receiving pits for trenchless construction methods within young with applicable (Holocene) alluvial deposits (see Figure 5 of Appendix D of the IS/MND). Monitoring of guidelines. ground disturbing activities within District right-of-way, the Ray Stoyer WRF site, and the Report to be Operations Center site, which are listed as exemptions in the District’s Native American submitted to Sacred Resources Policy, would not be required. If it is determined by the archaeologist District after and Native American monitor that past grading and other disturbances have removed monitoring soils with a reasonable potential for containing cultural material, monitoring can be discontinued. If cultural material is encountered, the archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity while the cultural material is documented and assessed. If cultural resources are encountered, the District shall comply with Section VI of the PDMWD Native American Sacred Resources Policy, AB 52, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, as applicable.
Page 14 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) ECAWP Cul-2 Construction Monitoring and Recovery of Cultural Resources (cont.) If discovered cultural resources are potential historical resources, the District shall comply with Section VIII of the District Native American Sacred Resources Policy and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, as applicable. Recovered artifactual materials shall be cataloged and analyzed. The District shall comply with Section VI of the District Native American Sacred Resources Policy and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, as applicable. A report shall be completed by the qualified archaeologist describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. The report shall be submitted to the District for review and approval. Artifacts collected (if any) shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards and transferred to an appropriate curating facility within San Diego County. CFMP Pal-1 Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. A District-approved Plan submitted to District to confirm Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared prior to qualified District for a Paleontological construction of CFMP projects that could directly affect geologic formations with paleontological approval prior to Resources moderate or high paleontological resource sensitivity (Tertiary sedimentary rocks, as monitor construction Mitigation and shown on Figure 4.6-1 of the PEIR). A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the Monitoring Plan Monitoring to District to carry out and manage the plan. Fieldwork may be carried out by a qualified was prepared. occur during paleontological monitor working under the direction of the paleontologist. Components construction Contractor to of the Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include, but not confirm that be limited to: monitoring was 1. The paleontologist shall attend all pre-grading meetings to inform the grading conducted and and excavation contractors of the paleontological resource mitigation program measures were and shall consult with them with respect to its implementation. implemented during 2. The paleontological monitor shall be on site at all times during the original construction. cutting of previously undisturbed sediments of Moderate-to-High resource sensitivity formation to inspect cuts for contained fossils.
Page 15 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) CFMP Pal-1 Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (cont.) Summary report, if necessary, 3. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist or monitor shall recover them. In submitted to instances where recovery requires an extended salvage time, the paleontologist District after or monitor shall be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to monitoring. allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Where deemed appropriate by the paleontologist or monitor, a screen-washing operation for small fossil remains shall be set up.
4. Recovered fossils, along with copies of pertinent field notes, photographs, and maps, shall be deposited (with the District’s permission) in a scientific institution with paleontological collections. A final summary report that outlines the results of the mitigation program shall be completed. This report shall include discussion of the methods used, stratigraphy exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils. GEOLOGY / SOILS CFMP Geo-1 Conduct Site-specific Geotechnical Investigation. A site-specific District, District- During project Results and/or geotechnical investigation will be completed to identify site-specific criteria related to approved qualified design measures to be considerations such as grading, excavation, fill, and structure/facility design. All geologist incorporated into applicable results and recommendations from the geotechnical investigation will be project design and incorporated into the associated individual project design and construction documents construction to address identified potential geologic and soil hazards, including but not necessarily documents as limited to: (1) seismic hazards including ground rupture, ground acceleration (ground appropriate. shaking), soil liquefaction (and related issues such as dynamic settlement and lateral spreading), landslides/slope instability, and seiche effects; and (2) non-seismic hazards including manufactured slope instability, subsidence/compressible soils, expansive or corrosive soils, and trench/excavation instability. The final project design and construction documents will also encompass applicable standard design and construction practices from established
Page 16 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date GEOLOGY / SOILS (cont.) CFMP Geo-1 Conduct Site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (cont.) regulatory/industry sources including the CBC, IBC, CGS, Greenbook and District standards, as well as the results/recommendations of geotechnical review and field observations/testing to be conducted during project excavation, grading and construction activities (with all related requirements to be included in applicable engineering/design drawings and construction contract specifications). A summary of the types of remedial measures typically associated with identified potential seismic hazards, pursuant to applicable regulatory and industry standards, is provided below. The remedial measures identified/recommended as part of the described site-specific geotechnical investigation will take priority over the more general types of standard regulatory/industry measures provided herein.
• Ground Rupture: (1) Locate (or relocate) applicable facilities away from known active (or potentially active) faults and outside of associated CGS Earthquake Fault Zones; and (2) require appropriate (typically 50-foot) building exclusion buffers (setbacks) on either side of applicable fault traces.
• Ground Acceleration (Ground Shaking): (1) Incorporate applicable seismic loading factors (e.g., IBC/CBC/CGS criteria) into the design of facilities such as structures, foundations/slabs, pavement, pipelines, utilities, manufactured slopes, retaining walls and drainage facilities; (2) use remedial grading techniques where appropriate (e.g., removing/replacing and/or reconditioning unsuitable soils); and (3) use properly engineered fill per applicable industry/regulatory standards (e.g., IBC/CBC/CGS), including criteria such as appropriate fill composition, placement methodology, compaction levels, and moisture content.
• Liquefaction and Related Effects: (1) Remove unsuitable soils and replace with engineered fill (as previously described), per applicable regulatory/industry standards (e.g., IBC/CBC/CGS); (2) employ measures such as deep soil mixing (i.e., introducing cement to consolidate loose soils) or use of subsurface structures
Page 17 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date GEOLOGY / SOILS (cont.) CFMP Geo-1 Conduct Site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (cont.) (e.g., stone columns or piles) to provide support (i.e., by extending structures into competent underlying units); (3) use appropriate surface drainage and/or subdrains in applicable areas to avoid or reduce near-surface saturation; and (4) design for potential settlement of liquefiable materials through means such as use of post-tensioned foundations and/or flexible couplings for utility connections.
• Landslides/Slope Instability: (1) Construct properly drained shear keys and/or replace susceptible deposits with manufactured buttress fills where appropriate; (2) employ applicable slope laybacks (i.e., shallower slopes) and/or structural setbacks; (3) incorporate structures such as retaining walls and stability fills where appropriate to provide support; (4) provide protective walls or other barriers in areas susceptible to landslides; and (5) implement proper slope drainage and landscaping where applicable per established regulatory/industry standards (e.g., IBC/CBC/CGS).
• Seiche Effects: Implement scour protection measures such as appropriate pipeline depths, and use of armoring (e.g., concrete or riprap covers) or other protection devices (e.g., barriers) for applicable projects that cross drainages and rivers.
• Manufactured Slope Instability: (1) Limit slope grades to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or other applicable ratios based on site-specific conditions and the results of slope stability analyses (if recommended as part of the geotechnical analyses); (2) employ similar strategies regarding slope laybacks, structure setbacks and support/protective structures as outlined above under the discussion of Landslides/Slope Instability; (3) provide appropriate short- and long-term drainage control, such as slope drains and/or brow ditches to avoid/minimize runoff on slopes; and (4) utilize native and/or drought-tolerant landscaping varieties, as well as “smart” irrigation systems (e.g., appropriate water schedules and rain/pressure-sensitive sensors/shutoff devices) to minimize irrigation and associated runoff.
Page 18 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date GEOLOGY / SOILS (cont.) CFMP Geo-1 Conduct Site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (cont.)
• Subsidence/Compression: (1) Use standard efforts such as over-excavation and recompaction or replacement of unsuitable materials with engineered fill, and enhanced foundation design in applicable areas (e.g., post-tensioned or mat slab foundations); (2) use engineered fill, subdrains, surcharging (i.e., loading prior to construction to induce settlement) and/or settlement monitoring (e.g., through the use of settlement monuments) in appropriate areas; (3) implement groundwater withdrawal monitoring/restrictions per established legal/regulatory/industry standards (if applicable).
• Collapsible Soils: (1) Over-excavation and recompaction or replacement of unsuitable materials with engineered fill; (2) deep soil mixing, use of subsurface structures to provide support, and proper surface drainage/subdrains (as described above under Liquefaction); and (3) surcharging (as described above under Subsidence/ Compression).
• Expansive Soils: (1) Replace and/or mix expansive materials with non-expansive fill; and (2) cap expansive soils in place with an appropriate thickness of non- expansive fill per established regulatory/industry standards (e.g., IBC/CBC).
• Corrosive Soils: (1) Remove unsuitable deposits and replace with non-corrosive fill; (2) use corrosion-resistant construction materials (e.g., corrosion-resistant concrete and coated or non-metallic facilities); or (3) install cathodic protection devices (e.g., use of a more easily corroded “sacrificial metal” to serve as an anode and draw current away from the structure to be protected) per established regulatory/industry standards (e.g., IBC/CBC).
Page 19 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date GEOLOGY / SOILS (cont.) CFMP Geo-1 Conduct Site-specific Geotechnical Investigation (cont.)
• Trench/Excavation Instability: (1) Limit trench and other excavation depths and side slope grades to the minimum feasible levels; (2) provide shoring and/or other protective systems (e.g., benching and shielding) for applicable trenches/excavations, pursuant to associated regulatory standards (e.g., OSHA and Cal-OSHA); (3) restrict heavy equipment/vehicle access and material/soil stockpiles near trenches/ excavations; and (4) inspect trenches/excavations and related conditions/facilities at the start of each shift and after precipitation (or other water intrusion) events. ECAWP Geo-1 Construction Best Management Practices. The following best Contractor During Contractor to management practices (BMPs) will be implemented, as appropriate, during project construction provide District construction to reduce potential for erosion soil loss, and/or sedimentation to a less with than significant level: documentation that construction • Sediment shall be retained on the site. BMPs were • Sediment basins, traps, or similar control measures shall be installed at the time of implemented clearing and grading operations. during construction • Native vegetation is to be retained if possible, but if it must be removed, shall be done in such a way as to minimize erosive effects.
• Per the City of Santee Municipal Code Chapter 15, slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1 and fills shall be no steeper than 2:1.
• Earth or paved interceptors and diversions shall be installed at the top of cut or fill slopes where there is a potential for surface runoff.
• Temporary mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed critical areas during construction or other land disturbance.
Page 20 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CFMP Haz-1 Sewage Pump Station Safety Features. Sewage pump stations shall District, contractor During project District to confirm incorporate standard safety features, including an emergency generator on the site in design measures case of electrical failure, and sufficient sewage detainment capacity in the event of incorporated into generator and/or pump mechanism failure to allow time for repair and/or emergency project plans conveyance of the sewage. Portable emergency generators may be used for pump stations that cannot be equipped with an on-site generator. Each sewage pump station and treatment facility would implement a Sewer System Management Plan that includes contingency measures in the event of emergency leaks or spills. CFMP Haz-3 Fire Safety Plan. To minimize the risk of losses resulting from wildfire, District, District- Plan to be Contractor to the following measures shall be implemented during project construction for the approved completed during implement project: consultant project design practices during and implemented construction and • Construction within areas of dense foliage during dry conditions will be avoided, during District to confirm when feasible. construction implementation. In cases where avoidance is not feasible, brush fire prevention and management practices will be incorporated. Specifics of the brush management program will be incorporated into project construction documents. ECAWP Haz-1 Health and Safety Plan for Handling of Contaminated Soils. Prior to any Contractor During Contractor to ground-disturbing activity related to pipeline installation within the District’s Operations construction and submit DEH Yard or within 50 feet of a documented hazardous materials site in Mast Boulevard, the prior to ground- approved plan to contractor shall develop a Community Health & Safety Plan and Soil Management Plan disturbing District; District to for the safe handling of contaminated soils, which shall be reviewed and approved by activity related to ensure plan is the San Diego County DEH. Typical remedial measures for contaminated soils may pipeline implemented include efforts such as removal and proper disposal of contaminated materials, or on- installation during site treatment and reuse, if applicable. The construction contract will require the general within the construction. contractor or the subcontractor performing excavation work to have a California-issued District’s Hazardous Substance Removal “HAZ” Certification. Operations Yard
Page 21 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY CFMP Hyd-1 Conduct Site-Specific Water Quality Investigation. A site-specific water District, District- During project Results and/or quality investigation will be completed prior to approval of final project design. All approved qualified design measures to be applicable results and recommendations from this investigation will be incorporated into hydrologist incorporated into the final project design documents to address identified potential long-term water project design and quality issues related to conditions such as: anticipated and potential pollutants to be construction used, stored or generated on-site; the location and nature (e.g., impaired status) of on- documents as site and downstream receiving waters; and project design features to avoid/address appropriate potential pollutant discharges. The final project design documents will also encompass standard design practices from sources including NPDES criteria and other applicable regulatory standards (with all related requirements to be included in engineering/design drawings and construction contract specifications). A summary of the types of BMPs typically associated with identified potential water quality concerns, pursuant to applicable regulatory and industry standards (as noted), is provided below. The BMPs identified/recommended as part of the described site-specific water quality investigation will take priority over the more general types of standard regulatory/industry measures listed below:
• Low Impact Development (LID)/Site Design BMPs: LID/site design BMPs are intended to avoid, minimize, and/or control post-development runoff, erosion potential, and pollutant generation to the maximum extent practicable by mimicking the natural hydrologic regime. The LID process employs design practices and techniques to effectively capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff close to its source through efforts such as: (1) minimizing developed/disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible; (2) utilizing natural and/or unlined drainage features in on-site storm water systems; (3) disconnecting impervious surfaces to slow concentration times, and directing flows from impervious surfaces into landscaped or vegetated areas; and (4) using pervious surfaces in developed areas to the maximum extent feasible.
• Source Control BMPs: Source control BMPs are intended to avoid or minimize the introduction of pollutants into storm drains and natural drainages by reducing on- site pollutant generation and off-site pollutant transport through measures such as:
Page 22 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY (cont.) CFMP Hyd-1 Conduct Site-Specific Water Quality Investigation (cont.)
• (1) installing “no dumping” stencils/tiles and/or signs with prohibitive language at applicable locations such as drainages and storm drain inlets to discourage illegal dumping; (2) designing trash storage areas to reduce litter/pollutant discharge through methods such as paving with impervious surfaces, installing screens or walls to prevent trash dispersal, and providing attached lids and/or roofs for trash containers; (3) designing site landscaping to maximize the retention of native vegetation and use of appropriate native, pest-resistant, and/or drought-tolerant varieties to reduce irrigation and pesticide application requirements; and (4) providing secondary containment (e.g., enclosed structures, walls, or berms) for applicable areas such as trash or hazardous material use/storage.
• Pollutant Control BMPs: Pollutant control BMPs are designed to remove pollutants from runoff to the maximum extent practicable through means such as filtering, treatment, or infiltration. Pollutant control BMPs are required to address applicable pollutants, and may include efforts such as: (1) providing water quality treatment and related facilities such as sediment basins, vegetated swales, infiltration basins, filtration devices, and velocity dissipators to treat appropriate runoff flows and reduce volumes prior to off-site discharge (per applicable regulatory requirements); (2) creating a construction spill contingency plan in accordance with DEH regulations and retaining a copy of the plan on- site by the construction manager; and (3) conducting regular inspection, maintenance, and as-needed repairs of pertinent facilities and structures.
Page 23 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY (cont.) CFMP Hyd-2 Conduct Site-Specific Hydrologic Investigation. A site-specific District, District- During project Results and/or investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the site-specific approved qualified design measures to be hydrological conditions, related potential impacts, and requirements. All applicable hydrologist incorporated into results and recommendations from this investigation shall be incorporated into the project design and associated final design documents to address identified potential hydrologic concerns, construction including, but not necessarily limited to: drainage alteration, runoff rates/amounts, documents as storm water management and hydromodification, and flood hazards. The final project appropriate design documents shall also encompass applicable standard design and construction practices from sources including NPDES (with related requirements to be included in applicable engineering/design drawings and/or construction contract specifications). A summary of the types of remedial measures typically associated with identified potential hydrologic concerns, pursuant to applicable regulatory and industry standards (as noted), is provided below. The remedial measures identified/recommended as part of the described site-specific hydrologic investigation will take priority over the more general types of standard regulatory/industry measures listed below.
• Drainage Alteration: (1) locate applicable facilities outside of surface drainage courses and drainage channels; (2) re-route surface drainage around applicable facilities, with such re-routing to be limited to the smallest area feasible and re-routed drainage to be directed back to the original drainage course at the closest feasible location (i.e., the closest location to the point of diversion); and (3) use drainage structures to convey flows within/through development areas and maintain existing drainage patterns, where appropriate and feasible.
• Runoff Rates/Amounts, Storm Water Management and Hydromodification: (1) minimize the installation of new impervious surfaces (e.g., by surfacing with pervious pavement, gravel or decomposed granite); (2) use flow regulation facilities (e.g., detention/retention basins) and velocity control structures (e.g., riprap dissipation aprons at drainage outlets), to maintain pre-development runoff rates and amounts for design storm events, if applicable; and (3) utilize additional and/or enlarged drainage facilities to ensure adequate on- and off-site storm drain system capacity, if applicable.
Page 24 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY (cont.) CFMP Hyd-2 Conduct Site-Specific Hydrologic Investigation (cont.)
• Flood Hazards: (1) locate proposed facilities outside of mapped 100-year floodplain boundaries wherever feasible; (2) based on technical analyses such as Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) studies, restrict facility locations to avoid adverse impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood waters; (3) based on HEC-RAS studies, use measures such as raised fill pads to elevate proposed structures above calculated flood levels, and/or utilize protection/ containment structures (e.g., berms, barriers or water-tight doors) to avoid flood damage; and (4) if Project-related activities/facilities result in applicable proposed changes to mapped FEMA floodplains, obtain an approved Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and/or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA, as applicable. NOISE CFMP Noi-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis for Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP Facility District, District- Requirement for Qualified Expansions. Final design for the expansions of the Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP facility approved qualified analysis in design acoustical shall demonstrate that sufficient noise attenuation is adequate to ensure that exterior acoustical documents consultant to noise levels generated from the Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP facility shall not exceed the consultant submit final noise Analysis to be City of Santee one-hour exterior noise limit at the nearest residential property line of impact analysis; conducted post 55 dBA LEQ from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 50 dBA LEQ from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and District to install construction 45 dBA LEQ from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. additional noise abatement as The District shall require the preparation of a final noise impact analysis by a qualified required acoustical consultant as part of the facilities design submittal for the Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP facility expansions. The final noise impact analysis shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. If the analysis indicates an exceedance of noise ordinance limits from the expansions, the District shall install additional noise abatement sufficient to reduce noise to the limits of the applicable standards. These abatement measures could include noise abatement inside the facilities (e.g., higher Sound Transmission Class [STC] windows, new equipment with a lower sound power rating, or repositioning of equipment) or a noise barrier (e.g., fences, walls, or full enclosure of the facility/device).
Page 25 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) CFMP Noi-2 Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis for Ray Stoyer WRF and AWTP Facility Expansions (cont.) The specific additional features, if required, shall be determined by the qualified acoustical consultant based on the results of the final noise analysis. The features shall be installed, and their effectiveness in achieving applicable noise limits verified by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to operation of the facilities. CFMP Noi-3 Construction Vibration Control Measures. The following measures shall District, contractor Vibration plan to Contractor to be implemented during construction of the project to minimize vibration effects to be prepared provide District surrounding noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses: during project with design and documentation • For any construction activities that include blasting, a qualified blasting consultant implemented that plan was and geotechnical consultant shall prepare all required blasting plans and monitor during implemented all blasting activities in conformance with the standards of the State of California, construction; during Department of Mines. noticing shall construction • Noticing for blasting shall be provided between two and four weeks prior to occur within 2 to construction to all residents or property owners within 600 feet of the alignment. 4 weeks of The announcement shall state specifically where and when construction will occur construction in the area. If construction delays of more than seven days occur, an additional activity notice shall be made, either in person or by mail. CFMP Noi-4 Construction Noise Limits. Construction activities shall comply with the Contractor During Contractor to following local noise ordinances where feasible: construction provide District with • City of Santee: A noise level limit of 75 dBA (8 hour LEQ) between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., documentation and no construction on Sundays, major holidays, and between 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. that noise control Monday through Saturday. limits were • City of San Diego: A noise level limit of 75 dBA (12 hour LEQ) between 7 a.m. to achieved during 7 p.m., and no construction on Sundays, major holidays, and between 7 p.m. to construction 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday.
Page 26 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) CFMP Noi-4 Construction Noise Limits (cont.)
• County of San Diego: A noise level limit of 75 dBA (8 hour LEQ) between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. If noise levels fail to comply with the local ordinances, the District shall implement sound control methods that reduce the noise levels to the specified limits, including those listed below in measure CFMP Noi-5. CFMP Noi-5 Construction Noise Reduction Measures. The following measures shall Contractor During Contractor to be implemented during project construction: construction provide District with • Heavy equipment shall be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby documentation residences. that noise control • Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators and compressors, shall be measures were maintained in proper operating condition and shall be equipped with implemented manufacturers’ standard noise control devices or better (e.g., mufflers, acoustical during lagging, and/or engine enclosures). construction
• Electrical power shall be supplied from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, in order to avoid or minimize the use of engine-driven generators.
• Paging and alarm systems used by the District shall be installed so that noise emissions are directed away from, and shielded from, sensitive receptors. Personal paging systems and light alarms shall be used where feasible.
• Staging areas for construction equipment shall be located as far as practicable from residences.
• If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices shall be powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine.
Page 27 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) CFMP Noi-5 Construction Noise Reduction Measures (cont.)
• The District or their construction contractors shall provide advance notice, between two and four weeks prior to construction, by mail to all residents or property owners within 300 feet of the construction work areas. The announcement shall state specifically where and when construction would occur in the area. If construction delays of more than 7 days occur, an additional notice shall be made, either in person or by mail.
• Nighttime construction work shall be avoided where possible. Should nighttime construction work be necessary in areas that may affect residential or hotel/motel land uses, the District’s contractor shall ensure that nighttime construction noise levels do not exceed a one-hour limit of 70 dBA LEQ for more than five consecutive days. In addition to the above noise minimization measures, temporary sound barriers may be installed as appropriate between the construction work area and affected noise-sensitive land uses.
• The District shall 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 District shall 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 shall be included in notices distributed to the public in accordance with the information above. ECAWP Noi-1 Ray Stoyer WRF Headworks Noise Reduction. Noise levels from the Ray District, District- During project District-approved Stoyer WRF Headworks shall be reduced to not exceed 45 dBA LEQ at the nearest approved qualified design noise consultant residential property lines and 60 dBA LEQ at the nearest sensitive habitat. Noise from the acoustical shall review design headworks emergency generator shall not exceed 55 dBA LEQ (daytime limit) at the consultant and ensure nearest residential property line. compliance with noise standards. District to ensure
Page 28 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) ECAWP Noi-1 Ray Stoyer WRF Headworks Noise Reduction (cont.) that any appropriate Noise reduction for the Headworks shall be demonstrated on the design plans prior to measures are construction. Designs shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant to ensure incorporated into compatibility with the aforementioned noise standards. final design plans. Measures to reduce noise levels to below a level of significance may include, but are not limited to, the use of barriers, noise-attenuating windows and doors, noise absorptive material, equipment modifications, or a combination of these measures. Any emergency generators associated with the headworks shall comply with the 55 dBA LEQ daytime limit. This may be accomplished with a noise control barrier or enclosure. ECAWP Noi-2 SHERF Cogeneration Noise Reduction. Noise levels from the SHERF District, District- During project District-approved cogeneration power generators shall be reduced to not exceed the nighttime limits of 45 approved qualified design noise consultant dBA LEQ at the nearest residential property lines and 60 dBA LEQ at the nearest sensitive acoustical shall review design habitat. consultant and ensure compliance with Noise reduction for the SHERF components shall be demonstrated on the design plans noise standards. prior to construction. Designs shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant to ensure compatibility with the aforementioned noise standards. The SHERF’s cogeneration power generators may include, but are not limited to, the following noise-control measures:
• In-line air silencers in intake and exhaust air ducts to meet the minimum criteria shown below in Table A, SHERF Noise Control Features.
• Forced air blowers for air movement.
• Engine exhaust silencer meeting the minimum standards of a Silex SE-12 shown below in Table A.
Page 29 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) ECAWP Noi-2 SHERF Cogeneration Noise Reduction (cont.)
• Exterior generator room door(s) shall have a minimum manufacturers STC rating of 55. • Any exterior mounted silencers, interior silencers and any ducting between interior room walls and silencers may have an exterior steel shielding layer (18-gauge minimum thickness) with 2-inch (or thicker) noise absorbing inner layer. • No doors or air openings in the walls facing the property lines; all doors and air openings would be in the walls perpendicular to the property lines. • Building construction with 8-inch (or thicker) grouted concrete masonry unit (CMU) or poured cement. Alternate mitigation may include relocating the cogeneration facilities further from the property line or by using updated noise source data at the time the final facilities layout is available, provided the noise levels are verified to be in compliance by a qualified acoustician.
Table A SHERF NOISE CONTROL FEATURES
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hertz) Manufacturer Model 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 Silence IN-Line 34 52 51 51 55 55 49 51 Requirements Duct Silex Eleminx 42 50 55 58 59.5 59.5 57 55 SE-12 Noise Control STC 55 28 46 45 45 49 49 43 45 Door
Page 30 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) ECAWP Noi-3 AWTP Noise Reduction. Noise levels from the AWTP Facility shall be District, District- During project District-approved reduced to not exceed 45 dBA LEQ (nighttime limit) at the nearest residential property approved qualified design noise consultant lines and 60 dBA LEQ at the nearest sensitive habitat. acoustical shall review design consultant and ensure Noise reduction for the AWTP Facility components shall be demonstrated on the design compliance with plans prior to construction. Designs shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant to noise standards. ensure compatibility with the aforementioned noise standards. Measures to reduce noise levels to below a level of significance may include, but are not limited to, the full enclosure of noise-generating AWTP Facility systems in a structure or building. If AWTP Facility systems are enclosed to ensure noise reduction, the following noise reduction measures may be implemented:
• Any openings facing to the north, south, and east have solid core steel doors with good seals, window systems with a manufacturers STC rating equal to or greater than 45.
• Any openings remain closed during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
• Any passive or active ventilation openings facing north, south, east, or on the roof provide noise reduction. Adequate noise reduction designs for ventilation may include acoustic louvers with the following minimum noise reduction values shown in Table B, Acoustic Louver Octave Band Transmission Loss – AWTP Facility.
Page 31 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) ECAWP Noi-3 AWTP Noise Reduction (cont.) Table B ACOUSTIC LOUVER OCTAVE BAND TRANSMISSION LOSS - AWTP FACILITY
Octave Band Center Frequency (Hertz) Data Type 63 125 250 500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 12-inch ALV-LV- 12 (Minimum 6 10 12 16 23 26 20 22 Loss) Source: Vibro-Acoustics 2010 (Appendix F)
ECAWP Noi-4 EMG Pump Station Generator Noise Enclosure. The generator noise shall District, District- During project District-approved be reduced to 60 dBA LEQ or 3 dBA above ambient noise levels (whatever is higher) at the approved qualified design noise consultant nearest sensitive habitat. This may be accomplished with a noise control barrier or acoustical shall review design enclosure. consultant and ensure compliance with Noise reduction for the EMG Pump Station generator shall be demonstrated on the noise standards. design plans prior to construction. Designs shall be reviewed by a qualified noise consultant to ensure compatibility with the aforementioned noise standards. To ensure noise reduction, attenuation may include, but is not limited to, the use of a noise absorptive material mounted to within two inches of the top of the enclosure walls. The material may be a minimum of two inches thick, with a minimum Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) of 0.9 by laboratory test rating. ECAWP Noi-5 Trenching, Jack and Bore, and Horizontal Directional Drilling Noise Contractor During Contractor to Reduction Measures. For construction operations that would occur at movable locations construction provide District along the pipeline alignment, the following setback distances would be necessary to with maintain noise levels to within local standards. documentation that noise control
Page 32 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) ECAWP Noi-5 (cont.) measures were implemented For construction within the City of Santee or County of San Diego, construction noise during shall not exceed 75 dBA LEQ (8 hour) as measured at the nearest NSLU. construction During trenching activities in the City of Santee or County of San Diego, a noise barrier may be required. The height would be dependant on the proximity of construction to the nearest NSLU: 6-foot noise barrier within 49 feet of a NSLU, or an 8-foot noise barrier within 34 feet of a NSLU. The barrier shall be placed between the noise- generating equipment and NSLU. During jack and bore construction in the City of Santee or County of San Diego, a noise barrier may be required. The height would be dependant on the proximity of construction to the nearest NSLU: a 6-foot noise barrier within 55 feet of a NSLU, an 8-foot noise barrier within 27 feet of a NSLU, or a 10-foot noise barrier within 15 feet of an NSLU. The barrier shall be placed between the noise-generating equipment and NSLU. During horizontal directional drilling requiring the use of a generator and diesel engine in the City of Santee or County of San Diego, a noise barrier would be required. The height would be dependant on the proximity of construction to the nearest NSLU: a 6-foot noise barrier within 67 feet of a NSLU, an 8-foot noise barrier within 34 feet of a NSLU, or a 10-foot noise barrier within 19 feet of an NSLU. The barrier shall be placed between the noise-generating equipment and NSLU. If a temporary barrier is used, all barriers shall be solid and constructed of masonry, wood, plastic, fiberglass, steel, or a combination of those materials, with no cracks or gaps through or below the wall. Any seams or cracks must be filled or caulked. If wood is used, it can be tongue and groove or close butted seams and must be at least ¾-inch thick or have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per SF. Sheet metal of 18 gauge (minimum) may be used, if it meets the other criteria and is properly supported and stiffened so that it does not rattle or create noise itself from vibration or wind. Noise blankets, hoods, or covers also may be used, provided they are
Page 33 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date NOISE (cont.) ECAWP Noi-5 (cont.) appropriately implemented to provide the required sound attenuation. The noise control barrier enclosures may be as an elongated “U” shape, with the elongated sides parallel to the pipeline. ECAWP Noi-6 Rock Crushing Noise Reduction Measures. If on-site use of a rock crusher Contractor During Contractor to is required, it shall be located more than 500 feet from the nearest residence. If located construction provide District within this distance, a temporary sound barrier shall be placed around the rock crusher with which shields nearby residences. The barrier should stand at least as tall as the highest documentation part of the crusher, at a minimum of eight feet. that noise control measures were implemented during construction ECAWP Noi-7 Lake Jennings Construction Traffic Plan. If construction traffic is required District-approved Construction Contractor to to be routed via Bass Road or Bass Drive around Lake Jennings to the site of the Consultant traffic plan to be provide District proposed water feature near Half Moon Cove, the District shall implement a (construction prepared during with construction traffic plan, in coordination with Helix Water District, to minimize traffic plan), project design documentation disturbance to noise-sensitive recreational users and nearby residents. This may be contractor and implemented that plan was accomplished through the incorporation of measures including, but not limited to: the (implementation during implemented restriction of haul trips per hour such that construction traffic does not increase hourly of construction construction during average ambient noise levels by 3 dBA LEQ or more; restricting trips to mid-day hours to traffic plan construction minimize campground visitors’ and nearby residents’ sleep disturbance; or restricting measures) construction activity to a season and/or day when the campground is not at peak use.
Page 34 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ECAWP Tra-1 Traffic Management Plan. Prior to construction, the applicant shall District-approved TMP to be Contractor to prepare a comprehensive Traffic Management Plan (TMP) for the proposed project. The Consultant (TMP), prepared during provide District TMP shall be prepared in accordance with all applicable requirements of the City and contractor project design with a copy of TMP County encroachment permits and applicable City and County plans, ordinances, and (implementation and implemented and policies. The applicants shall submit the TMP to cities of San Diego and Santee and of TMP measures) during encroachment/exc County of San Diego for review, comment, and approval. The TMP may include, but not construction avation permits be limited to, provisions for the following: indicating compliance from • Scheduling the timing and duration of work to avoid the peak commuter hours of agency of 7:00-9:00 am and 4:00-6:00 pm; jurisdiction
• Scheduling of daytime work on Mast Boulevard that would require lane closures will be limited to the hours between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
• Limiting construction work at the following intersections to Monday through Thursday nights between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.:
o Mast Boulevard and Carlton Hills Boulevard o Mast Boulevard and Cuyamaca Street o Mast Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue; • Restricting construction activities around El Capitan High School during drop-off and pick-up times;
• Coordinating with public transit providers (where necessary);
• Providing off-site construction worker parking areas and shuttles for workers to/from the job site;
• Implementing standard safety practices, including installing appropriate barriers between work zones and transportation facilities, placement of appropriate signage, and use of traffic control devices;
Page 35 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC (cont.) ECAWP Tra-1 Traffic Management Plan (cont.)
• Coordinating with the jurisdictions prior to construction to determine specific traffic handling layouts;
• Protecting traffic by using flaggers, warning signs, lights, and barricades to guide vehicles through or around construction zones;
• Restoring roadway capacity to the extent feasible during hours when construction activities are not occurring, which could include the use of road plates or temporary paving;
• Cleaning and restoring roadways upon completion of work;
• Repair of asphalt and other road damage (e.g. curb and gutter damage) caused by construction vehicles. Documentation of original conditions and repair shall be submitted to the lead agencies for review and verification within 30 days of repair completion;
• Avoiding roads operating at LOS E or worse through the use of alternate traffic routes and construction personnel carpools and/or shuttles;
• Limiting the length of open trenches to the length allowed by County and City encroachment permits;
• Implementing construction schedules and techniques that minimize roadway closures, including the number of cross streets and side streets that may be blocked or otherwise impacted by construction activities;
• Detours for cyclists and pedestrians when bike lanes or sidewalks must be closed;
• Installing steel plates over open trenches in inactive construction areas to maintain existing bicycle and pedestrian access after construction hours;
Page 36 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1 MMRP Summary
Monitoring and Verification of Responsible Mitigation Mitigation Measure Reporting Compliance Party Timing Procedure Initials Date TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC (cont.) ECAWP Tra-1 Traffic Management Plan (cont.)
• Implementing construction phasing or techniques to maintain access through intersections where no alternative routes are available;
• Coordinate with local schools prior to construction within close proximity of school property to ensure entryways are not blocked during peak drop off and pick up times;
• Enforcing speed limits of construction vehicles on all roads, including unpaved access roads within District property;
• Notify emergency response providers of road closures at least one week prior to closures and include the location, date, time and duration of the closure; and
• Abiding by encroachment permit conditions, which shall supersede conflicting provisions in the TMP.
Page 37 of 38 East County Advanced Water Purification Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This page intentionally left blank
Page 38 of 38