DOCSLIB.ORG

Archaeological Resources Inventory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Archaeological Resources Inventory Sweetwater Vistas Project PDS2015-GPA-15-006; PDS2015-SPA-15-002 PDS2015-REZ-15-008; PDS2015-TM-5608 PDS2015-MUP-89-015W4; PDS2015-STP-15-016 PDS2015-ER-89-19-015I Cultural Resources Inventory April 2017 Mary Robbins-Wade Director of Cultural Resources Nicole Falvey Lead Agency: Staff Archaeologist County of San Diego Planning & Development Services 5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92123 Project Proponent: Prepared by: Sweetwater Vistas LLC HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400 7578 El Cajon Boulevard San Diego, CA 92101 La Mesa, CA 91942 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY: SWEETWATER VISTAS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PDS2015-GPA-15-006, PDS2015-TM-5608, PDS2015-REZ-15-008, PDS2015-MUP-89-015W4, PDS2015-STP-15-016, PDS2015-ER-89-19-015I Lead Agency: County of San Diego Planning & Development Services Contact: Mark Slovick 5510 Overland Avenue, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92123 (858) 694-2962 Preparer: Mary Robbins-Wade _______________________________ and Nicole Falvey _______________________________ HELIX Environmental Planning 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 (619) 462-1515 Project Proponent: Terry R. Plowden Sweetwater Vistas LLC 1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400 San Diego, California 92101 619-906-4352 April 2017 HELIX Project No. DOW-05 NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION Authors: Mary Robbins-Wade and Nicole Falvey Consulting Firm: HELIX Environmental Planning, 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, La Mesa, CA 91942, (619) 462-1515 Client/Project Proponent: Terry R. Plowden, Sweetwater Vistas LLC, 1620 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101, (619) 906-4352 Report Date: April 2017 Report Title: Cultural Resources Inventory: Sweetwater Vistas, San Diego County, California. PDS2015-GPA-15-006, PDS2015-TM-5608, PDS2015-REZ-15-008, PDS2015-MUP-89-015W4, PDS2015- STP-15-016, PDS2015-ER-89-19-015I Type of Study: Archaeological survey New Sites: None Updated Sites: CA-SDI-185 (P-000185), CA-SDI-19654 (P-37-030966) USGS Quadrangles: Jamul Mountains (7.5' series) Acreage: 52 acres Keywords: Positive archaeological survey; County of San Diego, Sweetwater Springs, Isham Springs; APNs 505-672-03, 07, 09, 10, 23, and 37 LIST OF ACRONYMS APN Assessor’s Parcel Number CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CRHR California Register of Historical Resources NAHC Native American Heritage Commission RPO Resource Protection Ordinance SCIC South Coastal Information Center SR State Route TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Records Search Results ................................................................................ 11 1.3 Applicable Regulations ............................................................................................ 20 1.3.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .......................................... 20 1.3.2 San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources (Local Register) ........................................................................................... 23 1.3.3 San Diego County Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) .......................... 23 2.0 GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ................................ 27 3.0 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS ............................................................................. 29 3.1 Methods.................................................................................................................... 29 3.1.1 Survey Methods ........................................................................................... 29 3.1.2 Native American Participation/Consultation ............................................... 29 3.2 Results ...................................................................................................................... 29 3.2.1 Archaeological Resources ............................................................................ 29 3.2.2 Historic Resources ....................................................................................... 32 3.2.3 Native American Participation/Consultation ............................................... 32 4.0 INTERPRETATION OF RESOURCE IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT IDENTIFICATION........................................................................................................... 35 4.1 Resource Importance ............................................................................................... 35 4.1.1 Resource Importance – Archaeological and Native American Resources .. 35 4.1.2 Resource Importance – Historic Resources ................................................. 35 4.2 Impact identification ................................................................................................ 35 4.2.1 Impact Identification – Archaeological and Native American Resources ... 35 4.2.2 Impact Identification – Historic Resources .................................................. 36 5.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS – MITIGATION MEASURES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 39 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 43 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED .................................................................................................................. 50 8.0 LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ................ 52 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page Figure 1 Regional Location Map .................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map (USGS Topography) .................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Locations of Cultural Resources .............................................. Confidential Appendix C Figure 5 Locations of Cultural Resources in Relation to Site Plan ........ Confidential Appendix C LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page Table 1 Cultural Resources Within 1-Mile Radius ................................................................... 12 Table 2 Previous Studies Within 1-Mile Radius ....................................................................... 13 Table 3 Cultural Resources Within The Sweetwater Vistas Project Area ............................... 30 Table 4 Summary of Impacts and Significance ........................................................................ 36 Table 5 Mitigation Measures and Design Considerations ........................................................ 52 CONFIDENTIAL APPENDICES (Bound Separately ‒ Not for Public Review) A Records Search Maps B Native American Correspondence C Locations of Cultural Resources D Site Records ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sweetwater Vistas project is located in the Spring Valley community of southern San Diego County. The project is located at the intersection of Jamacha Boulevard and Sweetwater Springs Boulevard. The applicant proposes to develop residential uses, and a large portion of the project site will be left in biological open space. A cultural resources study was undertaken by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) in 2015, including a review of previous studies of the project site, a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, and a field survey. Two archaeological sites were previously recorded within the project area: CA-SDI-185 and CA-SDI-19654. The latter site consists of two rock features that are of recent age (not historic). During the current survey, CA-SDI-19654 was found as previously recorded; it is located within a biological open space easement and would not be subject to project impacts. CA-SDI-185 is a large site that has been the subject of a number of past survey and testing efforts, although the mapping of the site is inconsistent and sometimes confusing. This site was determined by past studies to be a significant resource; however, the only portion of the site that remains is located within an open space easement placed over the Isham Springs historic site, which is a part of CA-SDI-185. No evidence of CA-SDI-185 was found within the project area during the current survey. The project area has been subject to a great deal of disturbance, which apparently destroyed the archaeological site, except the portion that remains in an open space easement outside the current project area. Given the cultural sensitivity of the general area and the possibility for subsurface remnants of CA-SDI-185, a monitoring program will be required during grading and other ground-disturbing activity. Cultural Resources Inventory: Sweetwater Vistas / DOW-05 / April 2017 ES-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Cultural Resources Inventory: Sweetwater Vistas / DOW-05 / April 2017 ES-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report
    Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Newland Sierra Specific Plan December 2015 (Revised - July 2016) Prepared for Vallecitos Water District This page is intentionally left blank. Water Supply Assessment and Verification Report Newland Sierra Specific Plan Contents 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Vallecitos Water District .................................................................................................................... 11 5 Historical and Projected Water Demands ......................................................................................... 13 5.1 Demand Management ............................................................................................................. 14 5.1.1 BMP Categories ......................................................................................................... 14 5.1.2 Senate Bill X 7-7 ......................................................................................................... 16 6 Existing and Projected Supplies .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Rainfall and Reservoirs
    Local Rainfall and Reservoirs San Diego County Reservoirs ORANGE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY RED MOUNTAIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY RESERVOIR Fallbrook 76 DIVERSIFICATION MORRO HILL RESERVOIR Local Storage: LAKE HENSHAW Enhancing Water 15 TURNER LAKE A Vital Water Supply Reliability Vista Resource Oceanside 78 DIXON LAKE MAERKLE RESERVOIR LAKE WOHLFORD San Marcos SUTHERLAND Carlsbad San Diego Escondido RESERVOIR County’s semiarid OLIVENHAIN RESERVOIR climate means that SAN DIEGUITO Encinitas RESERVOIR 5 truly wet years are LAKE HODGES LAKE RAMONA few and far between, Solana Beach LAKE POWAY CUYAMACA and dry years are very 15 RESERVOIR Del Mar 56 Poway SAN VICENTE RESERVOIR common. Since 1976, the EL CAPITAN MIRAMAR RESERVOIR amount of local surface RESERVOIR 805 Santee water used to help meet La Jolla 52 LAKE JENNINGS annual demand has been as 67 high as 140,300 acre-feet LAKE MURRAY El Cajon 163 LOVELAND 8 RESERVOIR and as low as 4,071 acre- La Mesa feet. Consequently, runoff from 5 San Diego 94 SWEETWATER RESERVOIR BARRETT LAKE Lemon local rainwater that flows into Coronado Grove reservoirs – commonly National City MORENA 54 RESERVOIR called surface water – Chula Vista AF = acre-foot LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR represents a vital One acre-foot is but small portion of 905 approximately San Diego County’s Maerkle, Red Mountain and Morro Hill store 325,900 gallons, MEXICO treated water and do not capture local runoff. enough to supply water supply needs. 2.5 single-family Over the past 10 years, an Enhancing Water Storage households of four average of about 7 percent of the Today, the Water Authority and its mem- for a year.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.17 Water Supply
    4.17 Water Supply 4.17 WATER SUPPLY This section evaluates the potential impacts to the regional water supply associated with implementation of the 2050 RTP/SCS. The information presented was compiled from multiple sources, including the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and Metropolitan Water District (MWD) planning documents, and City of San Diego Water Department and Caltrans staff. Information was compiled from data in the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan Update (MWD 2010) and 2009 Annual Report, the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) (SDCWA 2007), the SDCWA Draft 2010 UWMP (SDCWA 2010), 2003 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (SDCWA 2002), and urban water management plans of local water districts and agencies. Ongoing water planning efforts by the State Department of Water Resources were also reviewed. 4.17.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS There are a multitude of independent districts and agencies that share the responsibility for the planning and management of the potable water delivery system throughout the San Diego region. The following section describes the water supply in the region by examining potable water supply and distribution in four categories: (1) MWD; (2) SDCWA and SDCWA Member Water Districts; (3) Special Districts and San Diego County-Operated Water Systems outside the SDCWA service area (groundwater dependent users); and (4) Borrego Valley Aquifer. Borrego Valley Aquifer is included in this discussion because this water supply source has a well-documented groundwater overdraft condition. An overdraft condition occurs when, year after year, groundwater extraction exceeds the amount of groundwater that is recharged back into the aquifer.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality
    4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section evaluates the hydrology and water quality impacts of the proposed Plan. The information presented was compiled from multiple sources, including Project Clean Water (PCW), the County of San Diego, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 4.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY Surface Hydrology Surface waters in the San Diego region include the ocean shoreline, bays, lagoons, lakes, reservoirs, playas/inundation areas/washes, streams, and rivers (Figure 4.10-1). Major rivers within the San Diego region include the Santa Margarita River, the San Luis Rey River, San Dieguito River, San Diego River, Sweetwater River, Otay River, and the Tijuana River. Major coastal waterbodies include Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Batiquitos Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, San Dieguito Lagoon, Los Peñasquitos Lagoon, Mission Bay, San Diego Bay, Tijuana River estuary, and the Pacific Ocean. Playas/ inundation areas/washes include areas surrounding Lake Henshaw, Lake Cuyamaca, Moreno Reservoir, and Lake Hodges as shown in Figure 4.10-1. Surface waters in the San Diego region have many uses, including but not limited to habitat for wildlife, recreation, and storage reservoirs for drinking water supply. Waters listed as impaired under CWA Section 303(d) (33 USC Section 1313[d]) are also shown in Figure 4.10-1. A description of the 303(d) list is provided in Section 4.10.2 Regulatory Setting. Watersheds and Hydrological Characteristics The San Diego region is divided into two hydrologic basins by the northwest-trending Peninsular Range.
    [Show full text]
  • William Griffith Henshaw
    t5,, WILLIAM GRIFFITH HENSHAW FROM AN ETCHING BY LOREN BARTON THE HISTORY OF WARNER'S RANCH AND ITS ENVIRONS By JOSEPH J. HILL WITH A PREFACE BY HERBERT E. BOLTON PRIVATELY PRINTED LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 1927 THE HISTORY OF WARNER'S RANCH AND ITS ENVIRONS HAS BEEN PRINTED FOR JOHN TREANOR, WHO HERE ACKNOWLEDGES THE ASSISTANCE OF DR. BENJAMIN P. KURTZ AND ARTHUR M. ELLIS IN ITS PREPARATION, BY YOUNG & McCALLISTER, OF LOS ANGELES, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD NINETEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY—SEVEN OF THIS EDITION ONE THOUSAND COPIES HAVE BEEN PRINTED OF WHICH THIS IS NO. THE CONTENTS The Preface vii I The Indians of Warner's Ranch II The Coming of the Spaniards 17 III The Discovery of Valle de San Jose' 27 IV The Missions and the Indians 35 V Secularization of the Missions 47 VI The Anglo-American Approach 63 VII Opening of the Trappers' Trails to California 75 VIII Beaver Trapping in California 9 3 IX J. J. Warner, Merchant, Citizen, Landlord ioi X Noted Visitors at Warner's Ranch 113 XI Warner's Indian Problem 135 XII The Legal History of Warner's Ranch 143 XIII Finding a New Homefor the Indians 155 XIV Warner's Ranch and Lake Henshaw 167 THE APPENDICES Diary of Fray Juan Mariner 187 The discovery of Valle de San José. Translation into English; with plate of first page of original Spanish document. II The Grant to Silvestre de la Portilla 193 Plates of title page of original Spanish document and map. III The Grant to Jose' Antonio Pico 197 Plates of title page of original Spanish document and map.
    [Show full text]
  • Microcystin Prevalence Throughout Lentic Waterbodies in Coastal Southern California
    toxins Article Microcystin Prevalence throughout Lentic Waterbodies in Coastal Southern California Meredith D. A. Howard 1,* ID , Carey Nagoda 2, Raphael M. Kudela 3, Kendra Hayashi 3 ID , Avery Tatters 4, David A. Caron 4, Lilian Busse 5, Jeff Brown 1, Martha Sutula 1 and Eric D. Stein 1 ID 1 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, 3535 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 110, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, USA; [email protected] (J.B.); [email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (E.D.S.) 2 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92108, USA; [email protected] 3 Department of Ocean Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 USA; [email protected] (R.M.K.); [email protected] (K.H.) 4 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, 3616 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0371, USA; [email protected] (A.T.); [email protected] (D.A.C.) 5 German Federal Environmental Agency, Umweltbundesamt, Wörlitzer Platz 1, 06844 Dessau, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-714-755-3263 Academic Editors: Lesley V. D’Anglada and Elizabeth D. Hilborn Received: 8 May 2017; Accepted: 13 July 2017; Published: 22 July 2017 Abstract: Toxin producing cyanobacterial blooms have increased globally in recent decades in both frequency and intensity. Despite the recognition of this growing risk, the extent and magnitude of cyanobacterial blooms and cyanotoxin prevalence is poorly characterized in the heavily populated region of southern California. Recent assessments of lentic waterbodies (depressional wetlands, lakes, reservoirs and coastal lagoons) determined the prevalence of microcystins and, in some cases, additional cyanotoxins.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis
    San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis U.S. Department of the Interior City of San Diego Bureau of Reclamation Public Utilities Department August 2017 Mission Statements The mission of the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department is to ensure the quality, reliability, and sustainability of water, wastewater and recycled water services for the benefit of the ratepayers and citizens served. The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover Photos: Clockwise from top left: San Vicente Reservoir facing northwest; Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant facing northeast; Carlsbad Desalination Plant facing east; and City of San Diego facing north. San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and Operations Guidelines Response Analysis August 2017 Prepared by: Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region Engineering Services Office Prepared for: City of San Diego Public Utilities Department Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region Southern California Area Office Peer Reviewed by: Ken Weinberg Water Resources Consultant Water Resources Consulting LLC San Diego Basin Study Task 2.3 – Existing Structural and
    [Show full text]
  • Local Rainfall and Reservoirs
    LOCAL RAINFALL AND RESERVOIRS an Diego County’s semiarid SAN DIEGO COUNTY RESERVOIRS Sclimate means that truly wet years are few and far between, and ORANGE COUNTY dry years are very common. Since RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1976, the amount of local surface RED MOUNTAIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY water used to help meet annual RESERVOIR Fallbrook demand has been as high as 140,300 MORRO HILL 76 acre-feet and as low as 4,100 acrefeet. RESERVOIR Consequently, runoff from local rainwater LAKE HENSHAW that flows into reservoirs – commonly called 15 TURNER LAKE Vista surface water – represents a vital but small Oceanside 78 DIXON RESERVOIR LAKE MAERKLE LAKE WOHLFORD San Marcos portion of San Diego County’s water supply needs. Carlsbad Escondido SUTHERLAND OLIVENHAIN RESERVOIR Over the past 10 years, an average of about 8 RESERVOIR percent of the region’s total annual water supply Encinitas 5 LAKE HODGES SAN DIEGUITO LAKE RAMONA came from local surface water. San Diego County has RESERVOIR Solana Beach 15 LAKE POWAY CUYAMACA RESERVOIR not relied solely on its local water sources since 1947, Poway SAN VICENTE Del Mar 56 RESERVOIR when imported water flowed through the region’s first EL CAPITAN MIRAMAR RESERVOIR aqueduct, making Colorado River water available to RESERVOIR 805 Santee La Jolla fuel the region’s post-World War II growth. 52 67 LAKE JENNINGS LAKE MURRAY El Cajon 163 LOVELAND 8 ENHANCING WATER STORAGE La Mesa RESERVOIR 5 San Diego 94 MORENA RESERVOIR Lemon SWEETWATER oday, the Water Authority and its member agencies Coronado Grove RESERVOIR National City BARRETT LAKE have 24 reservoirs that store imported and local runoff 54 T Chula Vista LOWER OTAY water for normal use, emergency conditions and imported RESERVOIR water shortages.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status and Distribution of the Freshwater Fishes of Southern California
    Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 92(3), 1993, pp. 101-167 CO Southern California Academy of Sciences, 1993 The Status and Distribution of the Freshwater Fishes of Southern California Camm C. Swift,' Thomas R. Haglund,2 Mario Ruiz,' and Robert N. Fisher3 Section of Fishes, Natural History Museum, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007 2Department of Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024-1606 r 3 Section of Zoology and Center for Population Biology, • 4 iTh University of California, Davis, California 95616 Abstract. —The fresh and low salinity waters of southern California include the Owens, Mohave, Colorado, and coastal drainages south of Monterey Bay to -the Mexican border. The youthful topography presents a strong dichotomy between steep rocky streams abruptly meeting relatively flat deserts or coastal plains. Little or no intermediate, foothill habitat exists. Thirty-eight native freshwater and 23 estuarine fishes have been recorded from this area. In addition, at least 100 species have been introduced, with widely varying success. Since the late 1940s and 1950s the native fishes of the Owens, Colorado, and Mohave drainages have been in jeopardy or extirpated in California. At the same time, the lowland fishes in coastal drainages, particularly on the Los Angeles Basin, also disappeared. Upland species of the coastal drainages still remain in a few isolated areas but are so reduced that special protection is needed. Only one estuarine species, Eucyclogobius newberryi, is threatened. Some tropical estuarine species of extreme southern California were last collected 50 to 80 years ago, and are very rare or extirpated here. If the remaining elements of the fish fauna are to survive, immediate action is needed to preserve the remaining habitat and to restore areas within the native range.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Resources Report Form
    Kearny Mesa Logistics Project Archaeological Resources Report Form April 2020 | LTD-18 Submitted to: City of San Diego Planning Department 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 Prepared for: Latitude 33 Engineering & Planning 9968 Hibert Street, 2nd floor San Diego, CA 92131 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Stacie Wilson 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Senior Archaeologist La Mesa, CA 91942 Kearny Mesa Logistics Project Archaeological Resources Report Form Submitted to: City of San Diego Planning Department 1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 Prepared for: Latitude 33 Engineering & Planning 9968 Hibert Street, 2nd floor San Diego, CA 92131 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 April 2020 | LTD-18 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ........................................................................................... 1 II. SETTING ............................................................................................................................................ 1 III. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT (APE) .................................................................................................. 5 IV. STUDY METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 5 V. RESULTS OF STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 6 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Compendium of Water Resources Initiatives in the Hodges Catchment
    &RPSHQGLXPRI:DWHU5HVRXUFHV ,QLWLDWLYHVLQWKH+RGJHV&DWFKPHQW Final Prepared ĨŽƌ the Regional Water Management Group City of San Diego County of San Diego September ϮϬϭϰ Page intentionally left blank. Compendium of Water Resource Initiatives in the Hodges Catchment Prepared for the San Diego Regional Water Management Group September 2014 Page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Introduction Figure 1: San Diego IRWM Region.......................................................................................... ii Figure 2: Regional Water Supply System ................................................................................ iii Figure 3: Hodges Catchment .................................................................................................... iv Figure 4: San Dieguito Watershed Hydrologic Overview ........................................................ v Figure 5: San Dieguito Watershed Land Uses ......................................................................... vi Figure 6: San Dieguito Watershed Natural Resources ............................................................ vii Figure 7: San Dieguito Watershed Water Agencies .............................................................. viii Figure 8: San Dieguito Watershed Wastewater Agencies ....................................................... ix Section 1: Regulatory Documents Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan), ........................................ 1-2 Order R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS0109266, National Pollutant Discharge
    [Show full text]
  • Late Comment Letters for North River Farms Revised Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II, Responses to Comments
    Late Comment Letters for North River Farms Revised Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II, Responses to Comments Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Brian Grover NOVEMBER 2019 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. LATE COMMENT LETTERS FOR NORTH RIVER FARMS REVISED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT L1 LATE LETTERS OF OPPOSITION The City notes these multiple comments in opposition of the project. These comments express general concerns regarding General Plan consistency, greenhouse gas emissions, smart growth, growth inducement, population and housing, pollution, agricultural resources, infrastructure, traffic, fire safety, and flooding, which received extensive analysis in the Final EIR and the Recirculated Final EIR. Specifically, refer to Appendices T0 and W0 of the Revised FEIR. These comments do not raise any specific issue regarding that analysis, and no more specific response can therefore be provided or is required. The City will include the comment as part of the Revised FEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the project. North River Farms Revised Final Environmental Impact Report 9759 November 2019 I LATE COMMENT LETTERS FOR NORTH RIVER FARMS REVISED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK North River Farms Revised Final Environmental Impact Report 9759 November 2019 2 LATE COMMENT LETTERS FOR NORTH RIVER FARMS REVISED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT L2 LATE LETTERS OF SUPPORT The City notes these multiple comments in support of the project. These comments do not raise any specific issue regarding the project’s environmental analysis; no further response is therefore required. The City will include the comment as part of the Revised FEIR for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the project.
    [Show full text]