HomeMy WebLinkAbout4. Water Facilities Master Plan - Final PEIR (2015 Update)OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2015 Water Facilities
Master Plan Update
Final
Program Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2015061091
November 2016
Prepared for:
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, California 91978-2096
Prepared by:
3570 Carmel Mountain Road Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
Atkins Project #100038569
Contents
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page i
November 2016
Contents
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses ..................................................... RTC-1
S. Executive Summary ................................................................................................. S-1
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Intended Use and Purpose of the Program EIR .................................................. 1-2
1.3 CEQA Requirements ............................................................................................ 1-3
Chapter 2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Regional Setting .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Local Setting ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2.1 North District ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2 South District ......................................................................................... 2-2
Chapter 3 Project Description ................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Project Location .................................................................................................. 3-1
3.3 Background ......................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Water Facilities Master Plan ............................................................................. 3-10
3.4.1 Purpose ................................................................................................ 3-10
3.4.2 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................... 3-10
3.4.3 Facilities Overview ............................................................................... 3-10
3.4.4 Description of Projects ......................................................................... 3-12
3.4.5 Phasing ................................................................................................. 3-17
3.4.6 Permits, Approvals, and Regulatory Requirements ..................................... 3-18
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 4.1-1
4.1.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................... 4.1-6
4.1.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................ 4.1-10
4.1.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.1-14
4.1.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.1-14
4.2 Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 4.2-1
4.2.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 4.2-1
4.2.2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................... 4.2-18
4.2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................ 4.2-24
4.2.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.2-39
4.2.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.2-40
4.3 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................... 4.3-5
4.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................... 4.3-9
4.3.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.3-15
Contents
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page ii
November 2016
4.3.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.3-15
4.4 Energy .............................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................... 4.4-2
4.4.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................... 4.4-3
4.4.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ................................................................. 4.4-5
4.4.5 References .......................................................................................... 4.4-5
4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology ..................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................... 4.5-10
4.5.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................ 4.5-12
4.5.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.5-22
4.5.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.5-22
4.6 Global Climate Change ..................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 4.6-1
4.6.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................... 4.6-8
4.6.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................ 4.6-11
4.6.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.6-15
4.6.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.6-15
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................... 4.7-9
4.7.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................ 4.7-14
4.7.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.7-20
4.7.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.7-21
4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics ..................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................... 4.8-3
4.8.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................... 4.8-6
4.8.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.8-16
4.8.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.8-16
4.9 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1 Existing Land Uses ............................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................... 4.9-4
4.9.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation .......................................................... 4.9-8
4.9.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2009 WRMP Update ............................................................... 4.9-10
4.9.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.9-10
4.10 Noise .............................................................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................... 4.10-6
4.10.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................ 4.10-9
Contents
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page iii
November 2016
4.10.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................. 4.10-14
4.10.5 References ...................................................................................... 4.10-15
4.11 Public Safety ................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................... 4.11-2
4.11.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ........................................................ 4.11-5
4.11.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.11-8
4.11.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.11-9
4.12 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Environmental Setting ...................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................... 4.12-2
4.12.3 Impacts and Mitigation ..................................................................... 4.12-4
4.12.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not Applicable
to the 2015 WFMP Update ............................................................... 4.12-5
4.12.5 References ........................................................................................ 4.12-6
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation ......................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Cumulative Projects Identified in the 2015 WFMP Update ................................ 5-5
5.2 Cumulative Projects in the Unincorporated Portions of the WFMP
Planning Area .................................................................................................... 5-10
5.3 Cumulative Projects on Tribal Lands (Sycuan Reservation) .............................. 5-13
5.4 Cumulative Regional Energy and Utility Projects ............................................. 5-13
5.5 Cumulative Impacts by Resource ...................................................................... 5-14
5.6 References ........................................................................................................ 5-23
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations ..................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Effects Found Not Significant .............................................................................. 6-1
6.2 CEQA Checklist Items Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update ..................... 6-3
6.3 Growth Inducement ............................................................................................ 6-4
6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ......................................... 6-6
6.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................... 6-6
6.6 References .......................................................................................................... 6-7
Chapter 7 Project Alternatives ................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Alternatives Analyzed ......................................................................................... 7-2
Chapter 8 Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................... 8-1
Chapter 9 Preparers ................................................................................................................ 9-1
Chapter 10 Distribution .......................................................................................................... 10-1
Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Responses
Appendix B Special Status Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within the Planning Area
Appendix C Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Contents
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page iv
November 2016
Figures
Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map .................................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-2 2015 WFMP Planning Area and CIP Projects ................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-2a 2015 WFMP Planning Area and Hillsdale CIP Projects..................................................... 3-5
Figure 3-2b 2015 WFMP Planning Area and La Presa CIP Projects ..................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-2c 2015 WFMP Planning Area and Regulatory CIP Projects ................................................. 3-7
Figure 3-2d 2015 WFMP Planning Area and Central Area CIP Projects .............................................. 3-8
Figure 3-2e 2015 WFMP Planning Area and Otay Mesa CIP Projects ................................................. 3-9
Figure 4.2-1 Vegetation Communities .............................................................................................. 4.2-3
Figure 4.2-1a Vegetation Communities – Hillsdale System ................................................................ 4.2-4
Figure 4.2-1b Vegetation Communities – La Presa System ................................................................ 4.2-5
Figure 4.2-1c Vegetation Communities – Regulatory System ............................................................ 4.2-6
Figure 4.2-1d Vegetation Communities – Central Area System .......................................................... 4.2-7
Figure 4.2-1e Vegetation Communities – Otay Mesa System ............................................................ 4.2-8
Figure 4.2-2 MSCP Open Space Reserves ....................................................................................... 4.2-12
Figure 4.2-3 MSCP Wildlife Corridors .............................................................................................. 4.2-13
Figure 4.2-4 CDFW Ecological Reserves and Wildlife Areas ............................................................ 4.2-24
Figure 4.5-1 Geologic Formations within the Planning Area ............................................................ 4.5-2
Figure 4.5-2 Potential Expansive Soil Areas ...................................................................................... 4.5-4
Figure 4.5-3 Mapped Faults .............................................................................................................. 4.5-6
Figure 4.5-4 Potential Liquefaction Areas ......................................................................................... 4.5-8
Figure 4.5-5 Paleontological Sensitivity Map .................................................................................... 4.5-9
Figure 4.7-1 County Hydrologic Units ............................................................................................... 4.7-3
Figure 4.7-2 County Floodplains and Floodways .............................................................................. 4.7-4
Figure 4.7-3 County Groundwater Basins ......................................................................................... 4.7-5
Figure 4.8-1 San Diego County Community Planning Areas ............................................................. 4.8-5
Figure 4.8-2 Scenic Resources within the Planning Area .................................................................. 4.8-9
Figure 4.10-1 Public and Private Airports ......................................................................................... 4.10-4
Tables
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................... S-5
Table S-2 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. S-20
Table 3-1 Miscellaneous CIP Projects ............................................................................................ 3-11
Table 3-2 Potable Water Storage CIP Projects(1) ............................................................................ 3-12
Table 3-3 Potable Water Pump Station CIP Projects(1) .................................................................. 3-13
Table 3-4 Potable Water Pipeline CIP Projects .............................................................................. 3-14
Table 3-5 Recycled Water CIP Projects .......................................................................................... 3-16
Table 3-6 2008 WRMP CIP Projects ............................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3-7 Potential Permits and Approvals ................................................................................... 3-19
Table 4.1-1 Air Quality Monitoring Data.......................................................................................... 4.1-5
Table 4.1-2 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status ......................................................................... 4.1-6
Table 4.1-3 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................... 4.1-7
Table 4.1-4 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Pollutant Thresholds .................................... 4.1-12
Table 4.2-1 State and Federally Listed Plant Species within the OWD Planning Area .................. 4.2-16
Contents
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page v
November 2016
Table 4.2-2 State and Federally Listed Plant Species Known Occurrences within the OWD
Planning Area .............................................................................................................. 4.2-16
Table 4.2-3 State and Federally Listed Animal Species within the OWD Planning Area ............... 4.2-17
Table 4.2-4 Listed Animal Species within the OWD Planning Area ............................................... 4.2-17
Table 4.2-5 Critical Habitat within the OWD Planning Area .......................................................... 4.2-18
Table 4.2-6 Potable Water Storage CIPs, Sensitive Habitat Types, and Estimated Impact ........... 4.2-25
Table 4.2-7 Pump Station CIPs and Sensitive Habitat Types ......................................................... 4.2-26
Table 4.2-8 CIP Pipeline Projects and Sensitive Habitat Types ...................................................... 4.2-27
Table 4.2-9 Miscellaneous CIP Projects and Sensitive Habitat Types ............................................ 4.2-31
Table 4.2-10 San Miguel HMA - Mitigation Bank Transaction Summary ........................................ 4.2-36
Table 4.4-1 Average Monthly Electricity Consumption of Existing OWD Pump Stations ................ 4.4-1
Table 4.5-1 Time Period Definitions for Epochs/Geologic Formations ........................................... 4.5-3
Table 4.5-2 Soil Associations, Slope Ranges, and Characteristics .................................................... 4.5-3
Table 4.5-3 CIPs Located in Paleontologically Sensitive Areas ...................................................... 4.5-21
Table 4.6-1 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes of Basic GHGs ....................... 4.6-1
Table 4.6-2 County of San Diego GHG Emissions by Category (2010) ............................................. 4.6-7
Table 4.6-3 Average Annual OWD GHG Emissions (2006-2007) ..................................................... 4.6-7
Table 4.6-4 CalEEMod Construction Activity Assumptions ........................................................... 4.6-13
Table 4.7-1 Beneficial Use Designations .......................................................................................... 4.7-6
Table 4.8-1 CIP Projects in Developed Areas ................................................................................... 4.8-7
Table 4.8-2 CIP Reservoir Projects in Undeveloped Areas ............................................................ 4.8-13
Table 4.10-1 Potable Water Storage CIP Projects within 0.25 mile of Residential .......................... 4.10-5
Table 4.10-2 Potable Water Pump Station CIP Projects within 0.25 mile of Residential ................ 4.10-6
Table 4.10-3 San Diego County Exterior Noise Standards ............................................................... 4.10-7
Table 4.10-4 City of San Diego Exterior Noise Standards ................................................................ 4.10-8
Table 4.10-5 City of Chula Vista Exterior Noise Standards .............................................................. 4.10-9
Table 5-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analyses .......................................................... 5-2
Table 5-2 Anticipated Increase in Population 2012-2050 ............................................................... 5-3
Table 5-3 Anticipated Increase in Employment 2012-2050 ............................................................ 5-4
Table 5-4 Regional Plan Projects ...................................................................................................... 5-5
Table 5-5 Cumulative Projects in the Unincorporated Portions of the WFMP Planning
Area ................................................................................................................................ 5-10
Table 5-6 Regional Energy Projects ............................................................................................... 5-14
Table 5-7 CPUC Projects................................................................................................................. 5-14
Contents
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page vi
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-1
November 2016
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT PROGRAM
EIR AND RESPONSES
Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Draft EIR was prepared by the
Otay Water District (OWD) for the proposed 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) Update EIR
(SCH #2015061091). The Draft EIR was submitted to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State
Clearinghouse and circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on August 3, 2016 and ending
on September 17, 2016. During that time, the document was reviewed by various state and local agencies,
as well as by interested individuals and organizations. A letter was received from the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research indicating that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR to selected state
agencies for review. All comments received by OWD have been fully addressed in written responses. The
public review comments and OWD’s corresponding responses are provided below.
This Final EIR includes the following items as required in Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines
■ The draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
■ Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR;
■ List of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
■ Responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review; and
■ Any additional information considered pertinent by the lead agency.
Revisions to the Draft EIR
The Final EIR includes minor text and graphical clarifications to the DEIR as a result of the comments
received during the public review period. Material added or deleted to the DEIR and technical reports are
identified in tracking mode in the Final EIR (strikeout for deletion/underline for insertion), so that the
original and revised text may be compared.
The clarifications to the EIR do not result in any new significant environmental impacts, an increase in the
severity of previously identified project impacts, or new feasible project alternatives or mitigation
measures that are considerably different from others previously analyzed. Therefore, these clarifications
do not trigger recirculation of the EIR, per Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Draft EIR Comments and Responses
The written comments provided on the following pages were submitted to OWD during the public review
period for the 2015 WFMP Update EIR (SCH No. 2015061091) dated August, 2016. All comment letters
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-2
November 2016
received were individually numbered, as indicated below in the Comment Letter Index. Responses to each
comment are provided after the appropriate comment letter. Some comment letters received during the
DEIR public review period contained comments that resulted in changes to the Final EIR text.
Comment Letter Index
Letter 1 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse .................... 3
Letter 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife ................. 6
Letter 3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 11 ....................................... 16
Letter 4 County of San Diego Planning & Development Services .................................................. 19
Letter 5 Metropolitan Water District ............................................................................................. 25
Letter 6 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) .......................................................... 32
Letter 7 San Diego County Archaeological Society (SDCAS) ........................................................... 35
Letter 8 Jackson Pendo Development ............................................................................................ 37
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-3
November 2016
Letter 1 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-4
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-5
November 2016
Response to Letter 1
1-1 This comment letter states that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) submitted
the IS/MND to selected state agencies for review. The letter also confirms that the IS/MND public
review period closed on September 15, 2016 and includes a list of agencies that received the
IS/MND. However, the close of public comment was September 17, 2016, and the OWD has
accepted public comment up to September 23, 2016. No response is necessary.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-6
November 2016
Letter 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-7
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-8
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-9
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-10
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-11
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-12
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-13
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-14
November 2016
Response to Letter 2
2-1 This comment is an introduction and does not address the adequacy of the environmental
document; therefore, no response is necessary.
2-2 Comment noted. By implementing Bio-SCP-1 and Bio-1A – Bio-1G impacts to sensitive habitat and
species would be significantly avoided. Specifically, Bio-1A and Bio-1B require additional mapping,
surveys, and consultation with CDFW and USFWS prior to the CEQA approval (as part of the
“tiered process”), final design, and construction of individual CIP projects. This would be inclusive
of all species in Appendix B.
2-3 Comment noted. The colors for San Diego fairy shrimp and San Diego ambrosia will be altered to
more easily distinguish between the two.
2-4 Comment noted, the code associated with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 will be amended
to reflect the correct code. Additionally, the federal regulatory setting will be amended and will
list the associated codes under their respective acts.
2-5 Comment noted. OWD acknowledges that the CDFW is no longer likely to process a Consistency
Determination (CD) for state listed plants.
2-6 Comment noted. Fish and Game Code 3800 has been omitted from State Regulatory Framework.
2-7 Comment noted. Discussion regarding Special 4(d) rule under the CESA has been eliminated.
2-8 Comment noted. Upon adoption of a program EIR, CEQA Guideline 15168 (c) allows for a Lead
Agency to determine the level of environmental documentation required for projects identified
in the program EIR. OWD will consider impacts on an individual project basis and will determine
the level of environmental documentation needed to satisfy CEQA requirements. Additionally,
OWD has provided a checklist for determining the environmental effects of a proposed project
identified in the program EIR; this checklist is included as Appendix C in the final EIR.
2-9 Comment noted. See response to comment 2-8 for a discussion regarding impact analysis and
level of environmental documentation required for projects identified in the program EIR.
2-10 Comment noted. An acreage table of sensitive plant and animal species impacted due to
implementation of the proposed project will be included in the final EIR.
2-11 Comment noted. An assumed width of impact for pipeline and other facilities will be used to
estimate acreage impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.
2-12 Comment noted. OWD utilizes siting measures to avoid impacts where necessary and select sites
that are near development. A checklist regarding individual project impacts, as described in
response to comment 2-8, will be used to address impacts on the project level.
2-13 Comment noted. The statement regarding FESA not protecting plants has been stricken from the
text.
2-14 Comment noted. The table now reflects that the Otay tarplant has been identified as threatened
by the USFWS and as endangered by the CDFW.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-15
November 2016
2-15 See response to comment 2-2 regarding a discussion of fully protected species, species of special
concern, and CNPS 1A, 1B.1 and 1B.2 species. Additionally, headings in Table 4.2-2 and 4.2-3 have
been edited to indicate State listed species are included in the tables.
2-16 Comment noted. Mitigation measure Bio-1A does not limit the surveys to species identified in
Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-4. If the survey identifies any listed species, mitigation measure Bio-1B will
be initiated, and impacts to any listed species will be minimized.
2-17 Comment noted. Tables have been amended to reflect the presence of the species noted in the
comment (Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly, Hermes copper butterfly).
2-18 Comment noted. OWD will consult with USFWS and CDFW prior to the siting of any facility or
pipeline that has the potential to impact sensitive species. Whenever possible, pipelines and
facilities will be located within roads, easement, or disturbed areas and will comply with land use
guidelines.
2-19 Comment noted. Mitigation measure Bio-1B(ii) has been amended to reflect Wildlife Agency
recommendations for nesting birds.
2-20 Comment noted. Table 3-6 and mitigation measure Bio-1B(iv)(c) have been updated to reflect the
desired changes.
2-21 Comment noted. Mitigation measures Bio-1F and Bio-1G have been added to help avoid impacts
to wildlife movement. See response to comment 2-12 for a discussion regarding siting of future
projects identified in the program EIR.
2-22 Comment noted. OWD acknowledges that consultation with agencies will occur during the siting
process when there is potential for impact to sensitive species and comply with land use
guidelines. In addition, each project will be analyzed and whenever possible, pipelines and other
facilities will be located within roads, easements, and disturbed areas.
2-23 Comment noted. Additional Land Use Project Design Features have been included in the final EIR.
The final EIR now includes all relevant adjacency guidelines from the City of San Diego Subarea
Plan, the County of San Diego Subarea Plan, and the Chula Vista Subarea Plan.
2-24 Comment noted. The final EIR will include an MMRP, and will include the added mitigation
measures Bio-1F and Bio-1G, and the additional guidelines measures in LU-PDF 1-3.
2-25 Comment noted. The level of analysis for the programmatic level environmental document
addresses the known impacts at the time of conception; further impact analysis is not feasible at
this time. Consultation with agencies will occur prior to the implementation of projects identified
in the final EIR.
2-26 Comment noted. For a discussion regarding impact analysis of future projects identified in the
final EIR see response to comment 2-8.
2-27 This comment is the conclusion statement for the letter and does not address the adequacy of
the environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-16
November 2016
Letter 3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 11
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-17
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-18
November 2016
Response to Letter 3
3-1 This comment is an introduction and does not address the adequacy of the environmental
document; therefore, no response is necessary.
3-2 Comment noted. OWD will comply with Caltrans Encroachment Permit review and permitting
where required.
3-3 Comment noted. OWD will comply with Caltrans Encroachment Permit application requirements.
3-4 Comment noted. Improvement plans will comply with state codes and information as required by
the Department’s Permit Manual will be included. OWD will comply with the American Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements.
3-5 Comment noted. OWD will comply with Caltrans Encroachment Permit review and permitting
where required.
3-6 Comment noted. OWD will coordinate with Caltrans to reduce potential conflicts between the
development of P2451 and the POE, as appropriate.
3-7 This comment is the conclusion statement for the letter does not address the adequacy of the
environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-19
November 2016
Letter 4 County of San Diego Planning & Development Services
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-20
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-21
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-22
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-23
November 2016
Response to Letter 4
4-1 This comment is an introduction to the letter and does not address the adequacy of the
environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
4-2 Comment noted. Revision made as suggested to update County WPO to current adopted 2016
version and update SUSMP to the current BMP Design Manual.
4-3 Revision made to Section 4.7.3.1 “Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices” as
follows: “Additionally, CIP projects will incorporate permanent site design and source control
BMPs in accordance with the County WPO and BMP Design Manual and conform to any applicable
Priority Development Project requirements detailed in WPO Section 67.810(b).” Note: WPO
Section 67.810(b) is not currently present in the publicly available version of the WPO on the
County website (http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dpw/watersheds/ordinance.html).
4-4 Comment noted. Current hydromodification management practices required by the County WPO
will be implemented by OWD.
4-5 Comment noted. OWD will comply with all requirements of the County’s Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance and Federal FEMA Regulations.
4-6 Comment noted. Requirements for Encroachment Permit application will be met and repairs to
County-maintained roads damaged or disturbed as a result of the project will be completed to the
satisfaction of County Department of Public Works Private Development Construction Inspection
and Road Maintenance sections.
4-7 Comment noted. All PEIR exhibits with the callout “Village 13” have been removed to accurately
display the “area of influence” in the project exhibits, including figures and maps.
4-8 In response to this comment, the PEIR text in Section 3.4.1 (Project Description, Water Facilities
Master Plan, Purpose) has been revised to accurately represent the County unincorporated
development areas.
4-9 Comment noted. OWD will work with the County and development applicants in siting potable
water CIP projects within Village 13 and 14.
4-10 In response to this comment, the PEIR text in Section 4.12.1 (Transportation/Traffic,
Environmental Setting) has been revised.
4-11 In response to this comment, Section 5.1 (Cumulative Projects) has been revised.
4-12 In response to this comment, the following PEIR text in Section 5.1 (Cumulative Projects, Proctor
Valley Parcel) has been revised.
4-13 In response to this comment, Section 5.1 (Cumulative Projects, San Ysidro Mountain Parcel) has
been revised.
4-14 In response to this comment, Section 5.1 (Cumulative Projects, Sunroad Technical Centre) has
been revised.
4-15 In response to this comment, Section 5.2 (Cumulative Projects within the Unincorporated Portions
of the WFMP Planning Area, Specific Plans/Specific Plan Amendments) has been revised.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-24
November 2016
4-16 Table 5-6 was consolidated into Table 5-5 to reflect projects both within and within the vicinity of
the OWD planning area. Updates were made to cumulative projects as suggested by the County.
4-17 This comment is the conclusion statement for the letter does not address the adequacy of the
environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-25
November 2016
Letter 5 Metropolitan Water District
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-26
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-27
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-28
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-29
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-30
November 2016
Response to Letter 5
5-1 This comment is an introduction and does not address the adequacy of the environmental
document; therefore, no response is necessary.
5-2 The comment identifies the Area of Influence (AOI) that is neither currently annexed to the Otay
Water District (OWD) and nor receives water from the OWD. The comment identifies that an area
that receives water from MWD-served agencies (such as OWD) must annex to both MWD and the
OWD, and the process of annexation must go through the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) annexation process. Comment noted.
5-3 The comment identifies a MWD comment letter submitted subsequent to the project’s Notice of
Preparation. In regards to potential future OWD-service of water to the AOI, which could only
occur after annexation through the LAFCO process identified in comment 4-2, MWD requests that
OWD, “assess the potential environmental impacts of annexation and the associated water
requirements, infrastructure, water supplies, and mitigation of water volume usage.”
Annexation of land within the AOI is not a component of the proposed project (the Water Facilities
Master Plan). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (d):
(d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency
shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the
project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which
may be caused by the project. (emphasis added)
(1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment
which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical
changes in the environment are the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that
would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from
operation of the plant.
(2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the
environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused
indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes
another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical
change in the environment. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment
plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in
sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution.
(3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably
foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is
speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.
The project is to revise the OWD 2009 WRMP; update planning criteria and OWD’s hydraulic
system models; map out water and recycled water facility improvements; update OWD’s CIP; and
identify adaptive responses to changed conditions. The WFMP’s forecast is based on the latest
regional growth forecasts developed by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG),
and is consistent with the adopted land use plans of all jurisdictions within the district boundaries.
The environmental document prepared is a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The
PEIR analyzes proposed (near-term; Phase II) and subsequent (long-term; Phase III) activities
associated with implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update. Annexation of the land within the
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-31
November 2016
AOI is not proposed as part of this project. Annexation of land within the AOI would not be caused
indirectly by the project. Finally, annexation of land within the AOI is not a reasonably foreseeable
impact which may be caused by the project. Therefore, assessing the potential environmental
impacts of annexation is not required or warranted in the project’s PEIR.
Furthermore, because the project does not include or indirectly cause annexation, or include any
water infrastructure or supply use associated with such activity, attempting to assess potential
future environmental impacts of annexation would be speculative. Per CEQA Guidelines Section
15064, speculation shall not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA; the decision as to
whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence
in the record of the lead agency.
As provided in comment 4-2, annexation proposals must go through the LAFCO process. Part of
LAFCO’s process includes CEQA review. The appropriate time to analyze potential direct and
indirect environmental effects of annexation of lands within the AOI to OWD is at such time that
annexation is proposed.
5-4 This comment is the conclusion statement for the letter and does not address the adequacy of
the environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-32
November 2016
Letter 6 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-33
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-34
November 2016
Response to Letter 6
6-1 This comment is an introduction to the letter and does not address the adequacy of the
environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
6-2 The comment identifies an update to the Regional Plan name. The correction has been made in
the Final EIR in the following locations:
Chapter 4.6, Global Climate Change, page 4.6-10
Chapter 4.12, Transportation/Traffic, page 4.12-3
Chapter 5, Cumulative, page 5-4
6-3 Refer to response to comment 3-3. OWD will work to coordinate with both SANDAG and Caltrans
to reduce potential conflicts between the development of P2451 and the POE, as appropriate.
6-4 This comment recommends a minor text addition to Chapter 4.10, Noise. The recommended edit
has been completed in Section 4.10.1.3, page 4.10-3 of the Final EIR.
6-5 This comment recommends a minor text addition to Chapter 4.10, Noise. Comment noted,
however, text was not revised. The CBX facility, while related to aviation use, is not an additional
source of noise within the OWD service area vicinity.
6-6 This comment recommends a minor text addition to Chapter 4.12, Transportation/Traffic. The
recommended edit has been completed in Section 4.12.2.2, page 4.12-2 of the Final EIR.
6-7 This comment recommends a minor text addition to Chapter 4.12, Transportation/Traffic. The
recommended edit has been completed in Section 4.12.2.2, page 4.12-3 of the Final EIR.
6-8 This comment requests that Table 5-4, which provides a listing of transit and transportation
projects, be updated to reflect projects from the Regional Plan. Refer to Response to Comment
6-2. Table 5-4 has been revised as requested.
6-9 This comment is the conclusion statement for the letter and does not address the adequacy of
the environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-35
November 2016
Letter 7 San Diego County Archaeological Society (SDCAS)
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-36
November 2016
Response to Letter 7
7-1 This comment is an introduction to the letter and does not address the adequacy of the
environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
7-2 This comment requests an editorial edit to correct text reference to the San Diego County Historic
Site Board. The text on page 4.3-9 of the Final EIR has been corrected. No additional response is
necessary.
7-3 This comment recommends identifying measures Cul-PDF-1 and Cul-PDF-2 in Table S-1 in the PEIR
Summary chapter. The text on page S-11 of the Final EIR has been amended to refer to Cul-PDF-1
and Cul-PDF-2, consistent with the impact assessment in Chapter 4.3, Cultural Resources.
7-4 This comment is the conclusion statement for the letter and does not address the adequacy of
the environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-37
November 2016
Letter 8 Jackson Pendo Development
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-38
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-39
November 2016
Comments Received on the Draft Program EIR and Responses
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page RTC-40
November 2016
Response to Letter 8
8-1 This comment is an introduction to the letter and does not address the adequacy of the
environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
8-2 Comment noted. Background information regarding Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19. No
response necessary.
8-3 Comment noted. Background information regarding Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19. No
response necessary.
8-4 See response above in Comment 4-11. No further response necessary.
8-5 Comment noted. There is no intent in the PEIR of focusing on CIP projects in Village 14 or Planning
Areas 16 and 19. No revisions are necessary.
8-6 See response above in Comment 4-10. Villages and Planning Areas have been removed from the
text.
8-7 See response above in Comment 4-12. Dwelling unit numbers have been revised per the County
of San Diego.
8-8 See response above in Comment 4-15. Text has been revised to include Village 14. Planning Areas
16 and 19 will also be added to the text.
8-9 Comment noted. Village 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19 will be included in Table 5-5.
8-10 Comment noted. Refer to response to Comments 4-12 and 8-7 above regarding dwelling unit
corrections.
8-11 Comment noted. Siting and dimensions for all CIP projects discussed in this PEIR will be analyzed
further during final design.
8-12 Comment noted. No response necessary.
8-13 This comment is the conclusion statement for the letter and does not address the adequacy of
the environmental document; therefore, no response is necessary.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-1
November 2016
S. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This chapter is an executive summary of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the
implementation of the Otay Water District (OWD) 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) Update. This
chapter highlights the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the 2015 WFMP
Update. Provided is a brief description of the 2015 WFMP Update, project objectives, and alternatives. In
addition, this chapter provides tables summarizing: 1) the direct and cumulative impacts that would occur
from implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update; 2) the level of impact significance before mitigation;
3) the recommended mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts;
and 4) the level of impact significance after mitigation measures are implemented.
Overview
This PEIR has been prepared in compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of CEQA
(Public Resources Section 21000, et seq.) and the State of California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.) to address the potential environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the OWD 2015 WFMP Update.
As required by CEQA, this PEIR: 1) assesses the potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative
environmental effects of the 2015 WFMP Update; 2) identifies potential feasible means of avoiding or
substantially lessening significant adverse impacts; and 3) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to
the 2015 WFMP Update, including the required No Project Alternative.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, this PEIR evaluates the effects of the entire 2015 WFMP Update at a
program level. This PEIR will be used by the OWD to evaluate the environmental implications of adopting
the 2015 WFMP Update. Once certified, this PEIR would also be used to tier subsequent environmental
analyses for future OWD development projects. OWD is the Lead Agency for the preparation of this PEIR,
as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15367, and has the principal responsibility for certifying the PEIR and
approving the 2015 WFMP Update.
Project Description
The purpose of the 2015 WFMP Update is to revise the OWD 2009 WRMP; update planning criteria and
OWD’s hydraulic system models; map out water and recycled water facility improvements; update OWD’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects; and identify adaptive responses to changed conditions. To
do this, the 2015 WFMP Update identifies the necessary potable and recycled water CIP facilities,
associated probable cost estimates, and develops a phased approach to implement the CIP projects. The
CIP projects identified in the 2015 WFMP Update will ensure an adequate, reliable, flexible, and cost
effective potable and recycled water delivery system.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-2
November 2016
Phasing and timing for the recommended CIP projects may be accelerated or deferred as required to
account for changes in development project schedules, availability of land or right‐of‐way for
construction, project funding limitations, environmental concerns or other considerations. The following
time frames were identified for the potable water projects: 2015-2016 (Phase I), 2017-2022 (Phase II), and
2023-2050 (Phases IIIA and IIIB). The following time frames were identified for the recycled water projects:
Phase I (Present-2026), and Phases IIA, B, and C (2027-Ultimate).
The WFMP’s forecast is based on the latest regional growth forecasts developed by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG), and is consistent with the adopted land use plans of all
jurisdictions within the district boundaries. OWD coordinates with these jurisdictions through its
development of Urban Water Management Plans, and through other ongoing coordination to ensure land
use plans account for the availability of water supplies and water service infrastructure. Consistent with
the LAFCO Area of Influence (AOI) designation, the 2015 WFMP Update accounts for projected
development within the AOI to the extent consistent with adopted land use plans and to the extent these
lands are expected to annex into the OWD. The AOI includes the Sycuan Indian Reservation, located to
the northeast of the OWD service boundary, but these lands are not included in the demand forecast.
The CIP projects identified in the 2015 WFMP Update and evaluated in this PEIR (refer to Section 3.4.4,
Description of Projects, of this PEIR) can be classified into five general categories: storage, pump station,
pipeline, water supply, and miscellaneous CIP projects.
Project Goals
The primary goals and objectives for the 2015 WFMP Update include the following actions:
■ Update Planning Criteria and the District’s Hydraulic System Models: Review and update, as
necessary, the District’s system performance criteria, and update the District’s InfoWater system
hydraulic models to account for new development and to maintain integration with the District’s
GIS system.
■ Map Out Water and Recycled Water Facility Improvements: Identify and prioritize the District’s
facility needs, including transmission, storage, and pumping facilities, to serve projected future
conditions.
■ Update OWD CIP: Update the District’s near-term (2020) and long-term (2050) CIP, based on a
new demand forecast, new supply options and identified facility needs.
■ Identify Adaptive Responses to Changed Conditions: Identify how needed facility improvements
and CIP items would change should future demand and supply conditions vary from baseline
assumptions.
Impact Summary
This PEIR examines the potential environmental effects from implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update,
including information related to existing site conditions, analyses of the types and magnitude of individual
and cumulative environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid
environmental impacts. In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the potential
environmental effects of the 2015 WFMP Update are analyzed for the following issue areas:
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-3
November 2016
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources
■ Cultural Resources
■ Energy
■ Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
■ Global Climate Change
■ Hydrology and Water Quality
■ Landform Alteration and Visual Quality
■ Land Use and Planning
■ Noise
■ Public Safety
■ Transportation/Traffic
Tables S-1 and S-2, presented at the end of this chapter, provide summaries of the environmental impacts
that could result from implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update and feasible mitigation measures that
could reduce or avoid environmental impacts. For each impact, Tables S-1 and S-2 identify the significance
of the impact before mitigation, applicable mitigation measures, and the level of significance of the impact
after the implementation of the mitigation measures.
Impacts to Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources are considered to be “Effects Found Not to be
Significant,” according to Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines. Population and Housing, Public Services,
Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems were not analyzed in Chapter 4 of this PEIR because they are
not applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update. The rationale for these conclusions are given in Chapter 6 of
this PEIR.
Alternatives to the 2015 WFMP Update
The following alternatives are analyzed in detail in Chapter 7 (Alternatives) of this PEIR. The objective of
the alternatives analysis is to consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to foster
informed decision-making and public participation. The 2015 WFMP Update alternatives include:
■ No Project Alternative. Under the “no project” alternative, the OWD Board of Directors would
not adopt the 2015 WFMP Update.
■ Reduced Footprint Alternative. This alternative would reduce the size and capacity of several CIP
projects located within sensitive biological resources.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior
alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. The No Project
Alternative would avoid all potentially significant environmental impacts identified for the 2015 WFMP
Update. However, this alternative would not preclude implementation of some, if not all, of the CIP
projects on an individual basis. In addition, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the
2015 WFMP Update.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) also requires that an EIR identify another alternative as
environmentally superior, besides the No Project Alternative. In this case, the next environmentally
superior alternative would be the Reduced Footprint Alternative, which would reduce, but not completely
eliminate, potential impacts to air quality, biological, and cultural resources. However, this alternative
would only achieve four of the stated objectives of the 2015 WFMP Update.
Areas of Controversy/Issues of Concern
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the identification of any areas of controversy known to
the Lead Agency including issues raised by other agencies and the public. In accordance with CEQA
Guidelines, the OWD prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this PEIR. The NOP was circulated to
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-4
November 2016
public agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments on the scope of the PEIR. A public scoping
meeting was held at the OWD on July 14, 2015. Six comment letters were received from public agencies
and one from a property owner association during the NOP public scoping period. However, no other
known areas of controversy were identified in response to the NOP or at the public scoping meeting.
Appendix A of this PEIR includes the written comments received during the NOP public review period. See
also Section 1.3 of the PEIR for further details regarding the NOP public scoping process.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-5
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
4.1 Air Quality
Obstruction of
implementation
of the applicable
air quality plan
Growth assumptions made within the 2015 WFMP Update to
determine future service requirements have already been
accounted for within the 2009 SDAPCD RAQS and 2007 SIP;
therefore, the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Consistency with
Air Quality
Standards
Implementation of standard construction practices (Air-SCP-1
and Air-SCP-2) would minimize air pollutant emissions from
construction activities. However, as the details regarding
number and type of construction equipment are unknown at
this time, emissions may result in a violation of air quality
standards, and therefore construction impacts are considered
potentially significant. Once constructed, operational sources of
air pollutants from the CIP projects would be less than
significant.
PS Air-1 An air quality technical study shall be prepared for each CIP once
the project reaches the design stage to determine whether potential air
pollutant emissions associated with construction activities are less than the
screening thresholds established by the SDAPCD. The air quality technical
study shall include an air pollutant emissions inventory for the CIP under
design, as well as emissions for all other designed CIPs that would undertake
construction within the same timeframe. All recommendations and
measures identified in the air quality technical study to ensure that air
pollutant emissions remain within established thresholds shall be
incorporated by the Otay Water District prior to any groundbreaking
activities associated with the project.
LS
4.2 Biological Resources
Candidate,
Sensitive, or
Special Status
Species
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would result in
direct impacts to sensitive plant and animal species.
PS Bio-1A During the design phase, OWD shall retain a qualified biologist to
conduct biological surveys as part of the “tiered” CEQA documentation for
these projects, following the program described in Section 1.2 (Intended
Use and Purpose) of this PEIR.
LS
Bio-1B If the biological surveys identified in performance measure Bio-1A
determine the presence of special-status species and/or sensitive or critical
habitats on or adjacent to the CIP site, then OWD shall map and quantify
the impacts in a Biological Technical Report as part of the “tiered” CEQA
documentation referenced in Bio-1A. Detailed project-specific avoidance
and mitigation measures for significant impacts to biological resources shall
be negotiated between OWD and the regulatory agencies, as part of the
approval and certification process for the subsequent CEQA documentation.
In addition, the following measures shall be implemented, as applicable:
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-6
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
i. Six (6) weeks prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction
activities that are scheduled to occur between February 15 and August
30, a qualified biologist shall commence focused surveys in accordance
with USFWS protocols to determine the presence or absence of the
California gnatcatcher. Documentation of the survey results shall be
provided to OWD and USFWS within 45 days of completing the final
survey, as required pursuant to FESA Section 10(a)(1)(A). If the survey
results are negative, then no further mitigation for California gnatcatcher
is necessary and vegetation clearing can occur at any time in the year
following the survey; only mitigation for the habitat loss shall be required
(refer to Bio-1B(iv) below). If surveyed habitat is determined to be
occupied by California gnatcatcher, then the following measures shall be
implemented:
a. Coastal sage scrub/gnatcatcher habitat shall not be removed during
the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 through August 30).
Work that has commenced prior to the breeding season shall be
allowed to continue without interruption. If gnatcatchers move into
an area within 500 feet of ongoing construction noise levels and
attempt to nest, then it can be deduced that the noise is not great
enough to discourage gnatcatcher nesting activities. If work begins
prior to the breeding season, the contractor(s) should maintain
continuous construction activities adjacent to coastal sage scrub that
falls within 500 feet, until the work is completed. However, if clearing,
grading and/or construction activities are scheduled to begin during
the gnatcatcher breeding season, then updated pre-construction
surveys are necessary as defined above. In addition, if these activities
are initiated prior to, and extend into, the breeding season, but they
cease for any period of time and the contractor wishes to restart work
within the breeding season window, then updated pre-construction
surveys are also necessary. If these surveys indicate no nesting birds
occur within the coastal sage scrub that falls within 500 feet of the
proposed work, then the adjacent construction activities shall be
allowed to commence. However, if the birds are observed nesting
within these areas, then the adjacent construction activities shall be
postponed until all nesting has ceased.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-7
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
b. Noise monitoring shall be conducted if construction activities are
scheduled during the gnatcatcher breeding season; if the
construction-related noise levels would exceed 60 dB Leq (i.e., the
noise threshold suggested by the USFWS for indirect impacts to
gnatcatcher); and if gnatcatchers are found within 500 feet of the
noise source. Noise monitoring shall be conducted by a biologist
experienced in both the vocalization and appearance of California
gnatcatcher, and in the use of noise meters. Construction activities
that generate noise levels over 60 dB Leq may be permitted within
300 feet of occupied habitat if methods are employed that reduce the
noise levels to below 60 dB Leq at the boundary of occupied habitat
(e.g., temporary noise attenuation barriers or use of alternative
equipment). During construction activities, daily testing of noise levels
shall be conducted by a noise monitor with the help of the biologist to
ensure that a noise level of 60 dB Leq at the boundary of occupied
habitat is not exceeded. Documentation of the noise monitoring
results shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 45 days of
completing the final noise monitoring event.
ii. Ten (10) days prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction
activities that are scheduled to occur between February 1 and August 15,
surveys for nesting bird species other than the California gnatcatcher,
including those protected by the MBTA, shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist following applicable USFWS and/or CDFW guidelines. If no
active avian nests are identified within the disturbance limits, then no
further mitigation is necessary. However, if active nests for avian species
of concern are found within the disturbance limits, then species-specific
measures prescribed by the MBTA shall be implemented by a qualified
biologist; a minimum buffer of 300 feet for passerine and 500 feet for
raptor species will be incorporated in order to minimize potential
disturbances to nesting birds from construction activities.
Documentation of the mitigation measures shall be provided to OWD
and USFWS within 10 days after implementation.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-8
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
iii. Ten (10) days prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction
activities that are scheduled to occur during the raptor nesting season
(generally January 15 through July 31), and where suitable trees (such as
Eucalyptus spp.) for raptor nesting occur within 500 feet of such
activities, pre-construction surveys for raptor nests shall be performed by
a qualified biologist. If no occupied raptor nests are identified in suitable
trees on or within 500 feet of the construction site, then no further
mitigation is necessary. Construction activities within 500 feet of
occupied nests shall not be allowed during the raptor breeding season
until a qualified biologist determines that the nests are no longer active.
Documentation of the raptor surveys and any follow-up monitoring, as
necessary, shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 10 days of
completing the final survey or monitoring event.
iv. For CIPs that would affect non-listed sensitive species and sensitive
vegetation communities, the measures listed below shall be
implemented prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction
activities. In addition, applicable regulatory agency permits and/or
authorizations shall be obtained for CIPs that would affect federal and
state-listed species, and the conditions of such permits and/or
authorizations shall be implemented prior to vegetation clearing, grading
and/or construction activities.
a. Special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-designated
critical habitats), sensitive vegetation communities and MSCP
resources shall be avoided through project design or site selection, to
the extent practicable.
b. For unavoidable impacts to special-status species (and any
corresponding USFWS-designated critical habitats), sensitive
vegetation communities and MSCP resources, off-site mitigation shall
be provided by one, or a combination of, the following measures, in
consultation with the USFWS and CDFW: 1) Debit credits from the San
Miguel HMA (Table 4.2-2 shows the status of the mitigation bank
credits, as of the date of this Final PEIR); 2) Contribute to the preserve
system of other agency MSCPs through land acquisition or purchase of
mitigation banking credits; and 3) Enhance, restore, create, and
preserve in perpetuity off-site habitat areas at locations and
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-9
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
mitigation ratios to be approved by the appropriate regulatory
agencies and in compliance with the mitigation ratios, guidelines, and
standards required by the applicable MSCP subarea plans. Typical
mitigation ratios for direct impacts to sensitive vegetation types
include 2:1 for coastal sage scrub; 3:1 for maritime succulent scrub;
3:1 for native grassland; 2:1 for oak woodlands; 3:1 for southern
interior cypress forest; 3:1 for riparian woodlands/forests; 3:1 for
coastal freshwater marsh; 2:1 for riparian scrubs (absent threatened
or endangered species); 5:1 for San Diego mesa claypan vernal pools;
3:1 for Gabbroic chaparrals; and 0.5:1 for non-native grassland
(absent threatened or endangered species). These ratios will be
decreased or increased depending on whether the impacts and
mitigation would occur inside or outside an MSCP preserve area. For
example, these ratios are typically doubled if impacts occur within
previously conserved lands. Plans for habitat enhancement,
restoration and creation shall be prepared by persons with expertise
in southern California ecosystems and native plant revegetation
techniques. Such plans shall include, at a minimum: (a) location of the
mitigation site(s); (b) plant species to be used, container sizes, and
seeding rates; (c) schematic depicting the mitigation area(s); (d)
planting schedule; (e) description of the irrigation methodology; (f)
measures to control exotic vegetation at the mitigation site(s); (g)
specific success criteria (e.g., percent cover of native and non-native
species, species richness); (h) 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 preserving the mitigation site(s) in perpetuity (including
conservation easements and management funding). In addition, OWD
shall negotiate and implement long-term maintenance requirements
to ensure the success of the mitigation site(s).
c. If federal permits or funding are required for CIPs (and listed species)
that occur within USFWS-designated critical habitat, then Section 7
Consultations with the USFWS shall be initiated by the appropriate
federal nexuspermitting agency.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-10
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Bio-1C Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities
for CIPs that have the potential to impact sensitive vegetation communities
or special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-designated critical
habitats), a qualified biologist shall attend a pre-construction meeting to
inform construction crews of the sensitive species and habitats within
and/or adjacent to these project sites.
Bio-1D Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction
activities, a qualified biologist shall oversee installation of appropriate
temporary fencing and/or flagging to delineate the limits of construction
and the approved construction staging areas for protection of identified
sensitive resources outside the approved construction/staging zones: All
construction access and circulation shall be limited to designated
construction/staging zones. The fencing shall be checked weekly to ensure
that fenced construction limits are not exceeded. This fencing shall be
removed upon completion of construction activities. Construction staging
areas shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from drainages, wetlands and
areas supporting sensitive habitats or species. Fueling of equipment shall
occur in designated fueling zones within the construction staging areas. All
equipment used within the approved construction limits shall be maintained
to minimize and control fluid and grease leaks. Provisions to contain and
clean up unintentional fuel, oil, fluid and grease leaks/spills shall be in place
prior to construction.
Bio-1E During vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction, a
qualified biologist shall monitor these activities: If sensitive species and/or
habitats adjacent to these project sites are inadvertently impacted by these
activities, then the biologist shall immediately inform the on-site
construction supervisor who shall temporarily halt or redirect work away
from the area of impact. OWD shall immediately be notified of the impact
and shall consult with the appropriate regulatory agencies to determine the
required mitigation, according to Bio-1B(iv)(b) and (c) above. The biologist
shall also ensure that all construction night lighting adjacent to sensitive
habitat areas is of low illumination, shielded, and directed downwards and
away from these areas.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-11
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Bio-1F Construction equipment will be checked by the biological monitor
prior to use each morning to ensure no sensitive wildlife species sheltered in
or around any equipment left on site overnight.
Bio-1G Trenches associated with pipe installation will be backfilled with
earth at the end of each work day to prevent wildlife access, with the
exception of the end of the open pipe, which will be left exposed. During
installation, the area surrounding the end segment of exposed open pipe
will be sloped at the end of each work day at an angle to allow wildlife to
easily escape. Also, the open end of the exposed pipe will be covered at the
end of each work day with a material flush with the open pipe entrance
such as a wooden board or cap such that no wildlife, including smaller
species like lizards, can enter the pipe. Should wildlife become trapped in
the vicinity of the open exposed pipe, the qualified biologist(s) will remove
and relocate the individual outside the construction zone.
4.3 Cultural Resources
Historical
Resources
Implementation of historic resource measures (Cul-PDF-1 and
Cul-PDF-2) require a historical building assessment prior to
demolition of PS 657-1 and PS 657-2, and a subsequent
documentation/treatment program as necessary, and would
reduce impacts to potential historical resources.
LS No further mitigation is required. LS
Archaeological
Resources
Ground disturbance associated with construction of certain CIP
projects under the 2009 WRMP Update has the potential to
affect potentially significant unknown archaeological resources.
PS Cul-2A Prior to initiation of any CIP project work, a review of records
search data, a search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred
Lands Files, and an appropriate-level field survey shall be conducted by a
qualified archaeologist to determine if any unrecorded archaeological sites
are present. If archaeological resources are found, if feasible, the preferred
course of action is that that archaeological resources be preserved in-situ.
When avoidance of impacts is not possible, site evaluations and possible
data recovery mitigation, as needed, shall be required for all resources. Any
artifacts recovered during excavation, other than cultural material subject
to repatriation, shall be curated with its associated records at a curation
facility approved by OWD and a qualified archaeologist. Excavation of
deposits shall be coordinated with and monitored by local Native American
representatives. The results of the field survey shall be presented in an
Archaeological Resources Management formatted report and a copy of the
report with all associated Department of Parks and Recreation site
LS
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-12
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
recordation forms be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center
within one month of report finalization.
Cul-2B During the design phase, available data shall be reviewed by a
qualified archaeologist on the depth of fill below existing roads in which
pipelines would be installed. If such review indicates that native soils would
not be disturbed by pipeline trenching activities, then cultural resources
monitoring will not be required for those CIP projects, and this
determination by a qualified archaeologist shall be documented by OWD in
accordance with CEQA requirements. OWD will provide a copy of this CEQA
documentation to the SDCAS. If it is determined that native soils would be
disturbed by project activities, then a cultural resources monitoring program
shall be implemented in accordance with measures Cul-2C through Cul-2D.
Cul-2C Prior to grading of CIP projects, OWD shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in coordination with
a Native American monitor (as applicable). Prior to beginning any work that
requires cultural resources monitoring:
i. A preconstruction meeting shall be held that includes the archaeologist,
construction supervisor and/or grading contractor, and other appropriate
personnel to go over the cultural resources monitoring program.
ii. The archaeologist shall (at that meeting or subsequently) submit to the
OWD a copy of the site/grading plan that identifies areas to be
monitored.
iii. The archaeologist shall coordinate with the construction supervisor and
OWD on the construction schedule to identify when and where
monitoring is to begin, including the start date for monitoring.
iv. The archaeologist shall be present during grading/excavation and shall
document such activity on a standardized form. A record of monitoring
activity shall be submitted to OWD each month and at the end of
monitoring.
Cul-2D In the event archaeological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, the on-site construction supervisor shall be
notified and shall redirect work away from the location of the discovery to
allow for preliminary evaluation of potentially significant archaeological
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-13
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
resources. The OWD shall consult with the archaeologist to consider means
of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the archaeological site
boundaries, including minor modifications of project footprints, placement
of protective fill, establishment of a preservation easement, or other means.
If development cannot avoid ground disturbance within the archaeological
site boundaries, then OWD shall implement the measures listed below. The
construction supervisor shall be notified by the archaeologist when the
discovered resources have been collected and removed from the site, at
which time the construction supervisor shall direct work to continue in the
location of the discovery.
i. Prepare a research design, resource evaluation plan and, if necessary, an
archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of
data for which the site is significant. The significance of the discovered
resources shall be determined in consultation with the Native American
representative, as appropriate. All archaeological work shall be
conducted in the presence of a Native American monitor.
ii. If, in the opinion of the qualified archaeologist and in light of the data
available, the significance of the site is such that data recovery cannot
capture the values that qualify the site for inclusion in the CRHR, then
OWD shall reconsider project plans in light of the high value of the
resource, and implement more substantial project modifications that
would allow the site to be preserved intact, such as redesign, placement
of fill, or relocation or abandonment.
iii. Perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a report and file it with
the SCIC, and provide for the permanent curation of recovered
resources, as follows:
a. The archaeologist shall ensure that all significant cultural resources
collected are cleaned, catalogued, and analyzed to identify function
and chronology as they relate to the history of the area; that faunal
material is identified as to species; that specialty studies are
completed, as appropriate; and that a letter of acceptance from the
curation institution has been submitted to OWD.
b. Curation of artifacts shall be completed in consultation with the
Native American representative, as applicable.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-14
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Human Remains Native American or other human remains could be encountered
during ground disturbance associated with construction of
certain CIP projects under the 2009 WRMP Update; however,
compliance with the California Health and Safety Code (Cul-SCP-
1) would reduce impacts associated with discovery of human
remains.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
4.4 Energy
Inefficient energy
use
The construction and operation of CIP projects under the 2015
WFMP Update would result in the consumption of energy,
however, implementation of energy efficient measures (Ene-
PDF-1, Ene-PDF-2, Ene-PDF-3, and Ene-PDF-4) would ensure
that energy use would not be inefficient, wasteful, or
unnecessary.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
4.5 Geology, Soils, Paleontology
Exposure to
Seismic-Related
Hazards
Compliance with UBC and CBC standards and CDMG’s Special
Publications 117 (Geo-PDF-1), and implementation of
recommendations provided in site-specific geotechnical
investigations (Geo-SCP-1), would minimize impacts associated
with seismic-related groundshaking, ground failure,
liquefaction, and landslides.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Soil Erosion or
Topsoil Loss
Compliance with UBC and CBC standards (Geo-PDF-1),
implementation of recommendations provided in site-specific
geotechnical investigations, and implementation of standard
erosion control measures (Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3) would
reduce impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Geologic/Soil
Instability
Implementation of recommendations provided in site-specific
geotechnical investigations (Geo-SCP-1 and Geo-SCP-4) would
reduce impacts associated with geologic/soil instability
(landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction/collapse).
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Expansive Soils Implementation of recommendations provided in site-specific
geotechnical investigations (Geo-SCP-1 and Geo-SCP-4) would
reduce impacts associated with expansive soils.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-15
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Paleontological
Resources
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update could impact
potential paleontological resources within the planning area.
PS Geo-5A During the design phase for all CIP pipeline projects within the
2015 WFMP Update, available data shall be reviewed on the depth of fill
below existing roads in which pipelines would be installed. If such review
indicates that native soils would not be disturbed by pipeline trenching
activities, then paleontological monitoring will not be required for those CIP
projects, and this determination shall be documented by OWD in
accordance with CEQA requirements. If it is determined that native soils
would be disturbed by pipeline trenching activities, then a paleontological
monitoring program shall be implemented in accordance with measures
Geo-5B through Geo-5D.
LS
Geo-5B Prior to grading for CIP projects, OWD shall retain a qualified
paleontologist to monitor all ground-disturbing activities for all CIP projects
described under Section 4.5.3.5 (Issue 5 Impact Analysis) of the PEIR. A
record of monitoring activity shall be submitted to OWD each month and at
the end of monitoring.
Geo-5C In the event fossils are discovered during ground-disturbing
activities, the on-site construction supervisor shall be notified and shall
redirect work away from the location of the discovery, so that the fossils can
be removed by the paleontologist for significance evaluations. The on-site
construction supervisor shall be notified by the paleontologist when the
fossils have been removed, at which time the construction supervisor shall
direct work to continue in the location of the fossil discovery.
Geo-5D For fossils removed from the construction site in accordance with
measure Geo-5C that are determined to be significant, the following
measures shall be implemented:
i. The paleontologist shall ensure that all significant fossils collected are
cleaned, identified, catalogued, and permanently curated with an
appropriate institution with a research interest in the materials;
ii. The paleontologist shall ensure that specialty studies are completed, as
appropriate, for any significant fossil collected; and
iii. The paleontologist shall ensure that curation of fossils are completed in
consultation with OWD. A letter of acceptance from the curation
institution shall be submitted to OWD.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-16
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
4.6 Global Climate Change
Greenhouse gas
emissions
Implementation of standard construction practices (Air-SCP-3) and energy
efficiency measures (Ene-PDF-1 through Ene-PDF-4) would incorporate all
applicable features that are consistent with measures recommended by
the California Climate Action Team, CAPCOA, California Attorney General
and the County of San Diego for assisting the State of California in the
attainment of the goals of AB 32.
PS GHG-1 Otay Water District will prepare annual construction
activity estimates prior to undertaking the first construction
activity of any year. The annual construction estimate shall
demonstrate that the annual construction equipment use will
be less than or equal to the activity shown in Table 4.6-4 of this
PEIR.
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality Implementation of standard erosion control measures (Geo-SCP-2 and
Geo-SCP-3), construction-related safety plans (Hyd-SCP-1), and OWD
HMBPs for CIP operations (Hyd-PDF-1) would reduce impacts associated
with potential violation of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, and potential water quality degradation resulting from
construction and operation of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Groundwater
Quality and
Recharge
Implementation of standard erosion control measures (Geo-SCP-2 and
Geo-SCP-3), construction-related safety plans (Hyd-SCP-1), and OWD
HMBPs for CIP operations (Hyd-PDF-1) would reduce potential
groundwater quality impacts due to storm water runoff pollution
associated with construction and long-term operations at P2391, P2554,
P2405, P2579, and P2392. In addition, there would be no impacts to
groundwater supplies and recharge from implementation of the remaining
CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Alteration of
Drainage Patterns
Implementation of standard erosion control measures (Geo-SCP-2 and
Geo-SCP-3), construction-related safety plans (Hyd-SCP-1), OWD HMBPs
for CIP operations (Hyd-PDF-1), and appropriately sized drainage facilities
(Hyd-PDF-2) would reduce impacts from potential storm water runoff
pollution (including erosion/siltation), flooding, and exceedance of
capacity of storm water drainage facilities due to alteration of localized
drainage patterns associated with construction, development and long-
term operations of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-17
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Mudflows Implementation of recommendations provided in site-specific geotechnical
investigations (Geo-SCP-1), would reduce potential impacts associated
with mudflows.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Scenic Vistas Implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would reduce the visual impacts of Res 980-
4, Res 860-1, Res 870-2, Lower Otay Pump Station, PS 978-2, PS 870-2, and
PS Perdue WTP on scenic vistas within the OWD jurisdiction.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Visual Character
and Quality
Implementation of Aes-PDF-1 and any additional project-specific
mitigation measures identified in subsequent CEQA documentation would
reduce visual impacts resulting from construction activities and design of
above-ground CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Lighting and Glare Implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would reduce the impact of new sources of
substantial light or glare in association with CIP projects which could
adversely affect day and nighttime views nearby.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
4.9 Land Use and Planning
Conflict with
applicable HCPs or
NCCPs
Design of CIP projects incorporating MSCP land use adjacency guidelines of
the County of San Diego (LU-PDF-1), City of San Diego (LU-PDF-2), and City
of Chula Vista MSCP (LU-PDF-3), compliance with exterior noise limits (Noi-
PDF-1), and pre-construction surveys (Bio-1C) would reduce indirect
impacts to biological resources that would otherwise conflict with
applicable HCPs and NCCPs.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
4.10 Noise
Permanent
increases in
ambient noise levels
Implementation of project design feature Noi-PDF-1 would reduce
potential operational noise sources from CIP pump stations and water
supply projects to the noise level limits established by the applicable
jurisdictions.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Temporary
increases in noise
levels
Although construction of CIP projects would temporarily increase ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity, Noi-SCP-1 would ensure compliance
with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations and Noi-SCP-2
would require the implementation the OWD Standard Specifications for
Explosives and Blasting. Implementation of these SCPs would reduce
impacts associated with temporary increases in ambient noise.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-18
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Groundborne
vibration
Construction of CIP projects may temporarily result in excessive
groundborne vibration and noise that may affect surrounding land uses.
However, implementation of the Noi-SCP-1 would ensure compliance with
applicable local noise ordinances and regulations and Noi-SCP-2 would
ensure the OWD Standard Specifications for Explosives and Blasting and
would reduce groundborne vibration from construction activities.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
4.11 Public Safety
Transport and use
of hazardous
materials
Implementation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Haz-SCP-1, Haz-
PDF-1, and Haz-PDF-2) would reduce hazards to the public or the
environment through transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials resulting from CIP construction and operations under the 2015
WFMP Update, and associated accidental releases of hazardous materials
into the environment and near schools.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Hazardous materials
sites
CIP construction activities could be located on or near listed hazardous
materials sites resulting in a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
PS Haz-2A As part of geotechnical investigations conducted
prior to ground-disturbing activities for CIPs (refer to the SCPs
listed in Section 4.5, Geology, Soils and Paleontology, of this
PEIR), a database search of hazardous materials sites shall be
performed within a one-mile radius surrounding the CIP site
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In the event
such sites are identified within the search parameters, OWD
shall retain a registered environmental assessor to prepare a
Remediation Plan for any contaminated soils or groundwater
encountered within the construction area. The Remediation
Plan shall be incorporated into the construction documents. If
contamination is encountered during ground-disturbing
activities, the on-site construction supervisor shall redirect
work away from the location of the contamination and shall
notify OWD, County DEH and RWQCB. The contamination
remediation and removal activities shall be conducted in
accordance with the Remediation Plan and pertinent
regulatory guidelines, under the oversight of the appropriate
regulatory agency.
LS
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-19
November 2016
Table S-1 Project Level Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Impacts
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Emergency
response plans
Implementation of a traffic control plan (Haz-SCP-2) would reduce impacts
associated with temporary, construction-related lane and road closures or
detours and their potential impairment or interference with adopted
emergency response and evacuation plans.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
4.12 Transportation/Traffic
Circulation system
performance and
level of service
standards
Implementation of the CIP projects would generate incremental increases
in vehicle trips and would not be substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways
within the planning area.
LS No mitigation is required. LS
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-20
November 2016
Table S-2 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis
Significance of
Cumulative Impact after Mitigation SDCRM Contribution
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
4.1 Air Quality
Consistency with applicable air quality
plan.
Sensitive receptors adjacent to CIP construction sites
for toxic air contaminants; the San Diego Air Basin for
criteria air pollutants.
LS Not cumulatively considerable.
Consistency with air quality standards.
Sensitive receptors adjacent to CIP construction sites
for toxic air contaminants; the San Diego Air Basin for
criteria air pollutants.
LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Air-SCP-1,
Air-SCP-2 and Air-1.
4.2 Biological Resources
Regional loss of sensitive plants, animals,
and vegetation communities.
Natural habitats within and adjacent to CIP
construction sites. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of performance
measures Bio-1A through Bio-1GE.
4.3 Cultural Resources
Regional loss of archeological resources. The planning area and adjacent areas of influence. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of measures
Cul-2A through Cul-2D.
Regional loss of Native American human
remains The planning area and adjacent areas of influence. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Cul-SCP-1.
4.4 Energy
Energy Consumption The planning area and adjacent areas of influence. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Ene-PDF-1
through Ene-PDF-4.
4.5 Geology, Soils, Paleontology
Localized soil erosion or loss of topsoil in
affected watersheds due to
development.
The Sweetwater River and Otay River watersheds
directly downstream from CIP construction sites. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Geo-PDF-1,
Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3.
Regional loss of paleontological resources The paleontologically sensitive geologic formations
within the planning area. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of
mitigation/performance measures Geo-5A through Geo-5D.
4.6 Global Climate Change
Greenhouse gas emissions Global atmosphere. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Air-SCP-1
through Air-SCP-3 and Ene-PDF-1 through Ene-PDF-4.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-21
November 2016
Table S-2 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis
Significance of
Cumulative Impact after Mitigation SDCRM Contribution
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Regional increase in pollutant sources
that could adversely affect water quality
standards.
The Tijuana River, Otay River and Sweetwater River
watersheds directly downstream from CIP
construction sites and above-ground CIP projects (e.g.,
enclosed reservoirs, pump stations).
LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Geo-PDF-1,
Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1.
Localized impacts to groundwater quality
and supplies/recharge.
The San Diego Formation, Sweetwater, and Otay
Valley groundwater basins. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Geo-PDF-1,
Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1.
Regional impacts to surface and
groundwater quality, groundwater
supplies/recharge, flooding, and
exceedance of capacity of storm water
drainage facilities due to alteration of
localized drainage patterns.
The San Diego Formation, Sweetwater, and Otay
Valley groundwater basins. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Geo-PDF-1,
Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, Hyd-PDF-1, and Hyd-PDF-2.
4.8 Landform Alteration and Aesthetics
Local degradation of scenic vistas. Public viewsheds from which above-ground CIP
projects would be visible. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Aes-PDF-1.
Local degradation of visual character. Public viewsheds from which above-ground CIP
projects would be visible. LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Aes-PDF-1.
4.9 Land Use and Planning
Conflicts with regional HCPs/NCCPs, in
terms of indirect impacts to biological
resources in MSCP reserves.
All of the open space reserves within and adjacent to
the planning area, as identified by Multiple Species
Conservation Plans of local agencies, including the San
Miguel Habitat Management Area operated by OWD.
LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of LU-PDF-1,
LU-PDF-2, LU-PDF-3, Noi-PDF-1, and Bio-1C.
4.10 Noise
Substantial Permanent Ambient Noise
Increases
Residential projects directly adjacent to CIP
construction sites and pump stations. LS Not cumulatively considerable.
Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise
Residential projects directly adjacent to CIP
construction sites and pump stations, and projects
adjacent to roadways and freeways used by
construction-related traffic along which the projected
increase in construction traffic would exceed noise
standards.
LS Not cumulatively considerable.
Executive Summary
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page S-22
November 2016
Table S-2 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Issue Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis
Significance of
Cumulative Impact after Mitigation SDCRM Contribution
Key: PS = Potentially Significant; LS = Less than Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Generation of Groundborne Vibration
Residential projects directly adjacent to CIP
construction sites and pump stations, and projects
adjacent to roadways and freeways used by
construction-related traffic along which the projected
increase in construction traffic would exceed noise
standards.
LS Not cumulatively considerable.
4.11 Public Safety
Transport, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials and accidental releases into the
environment and near schools.
Projects adjacent to roadways and freeways used by
vehicles transporting hazardous materials to and from
the CIP construction sites.
LS Not cumulatively considerable with implementation of Haz-SCP-1 and
Haz-PDF-1.
4.12 Transportation/Traffic
Circulation system performance and level
of service standards
Roadways and intersections in the vicinity of CIP
construction sites at which the projected increase in
construction traffic would exceed 50 peak-hour trips.
LS Not cumulatively considerable.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 1-1
November 2016
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
The Otay Water District (OWD) was authorized as a California Special District by the State Legislature in
1956, under the provisions of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911, and thereby gained its entitlement
to imported water. As a member agency of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), the OWD
purchases all of the potable water that it delivers from the SDCWA. The SDCWA is responsible for
transmission of the imported water supply within San Diego County to its member agencies, and is itself
a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).
In 2002, OWD developed a comprehensive Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP) that combined all
previously existing master plans and facility plans into one system wide plan outlining the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) projects required to serve their customers. In 2009, OWD updated the
WRMP. The following three phases were identified in the 2009 WRMP Update: Phase I (2015-2016), Phase
II (2017-2022), Phase IIIA (2023-2050), and Phase IIIB (2023-2050). Minor updates to the 2009 WRMP
were completed in 2010 and 2013.
Since 2002, OWD has continued to improve its potable water facilities to meet the water demands
associated with growth. OWD has also continued to improve and expand its recycled water facilities to
serve irrigation demands and conserve potable water supplies. The CIP is updated annually to reflect
system improvements and to identify future needs for budgeting purposes.
OWD has explored opportunities to expand its local resources as a means to offset the risk of interrupted
imported water supplies. To address the uncertainties surrounding imported water supplies due to
potential drought shortages or emergency seismic conditions, in addition to the rising costs of imported
water, OWD has prepared an Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) to develop a flexible, long-term strategy for
its future supply portfolio. The IRP defines a course for OWD’s development of local water supply projects.
To the extent the supply plans identified in the IRP affect the planning of OWD’s potable and recycled
water systems, they are incorporated into the Master Plan.
The purpose of the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (WFMP) Update is to revise the OWD 2009 WRMP;
update planning criteria and OWD’s hydraulic system models; map out water and recycled water facility
improvements; update OWD’s CIP projects; and identify adaptive responses to changed conditions.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 1-2
November 2016
1.2 Intended Use and Purpose of the
Program EIR
One of the purposes of a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) is to provide a basis for tiering
environmental documents that address subsequent activities, pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15168(c). CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(5) states,
“A program EIR would be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of
the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the
program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in
the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.”
This PEIR analyzes proposed (near-term; Phase II) and subsequent (long-term; Phase III) activities
associated with implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update. Adoption of the WFMP Update or
certification of the final PEIR does not constitute a commitment to any specific CIP project or activity,
construction schedule, or funding priority. Furthermore, inclusion of any conceptual plans, studies, or
potential construction assumptions in this PEIR does not constitute a commitment to such plans, studies,
or assumptions. Any inconsistencies between future CIP projects or activities and conceptual plans,
studies, or potential construction assumptions considered in this PEIR would not preclude the
environmental documentation prepared for the subsequent projects or activities from tiering from this
PEIR. Such inconsistencies merely indicate that the future CIP projects or activities may not be entirely
within the scope of this PEIR, and additional analyses may be required.
The PEIR process and the information it generates will be used for the following purposes:
■ To give government officials and the community the opportunity to provide input into the
decision-making process;
■ To provide agencies with information necessary for them to determine if they have jurisdiction
over some aspect of WFMP implementation and, if so, to identify permitting requirements;
■ To identify a range of reasonable and practicable alternatives;
■ To inform the public as well as the decision makers of the environmental consequences of WFMP
implementation and its alternatives and to assist agency officials in making decisions and taking
actions to protect, restore, and enhance the environment;
■ To assist the community in understanding the expected environmental effects and how decision-
makers plan to respond to and mitigate these effects; and
■ To develop mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate the potential for environmental,
public health, and safety impacts.
Subsequent environmental documents for future CIP projects that implement the 2015 WFMP Update
would tier from this PEIR, and may include Addendums, Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, Mitigated
Negative Declarations, and Subsequent or Supplemental EIRs. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section
15152, “tiering” refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR with later EIRs.
Tiering is accomplished by incorporating by reference the general discussions from broader EIRs. Tiering
allows the subsequent environmental document to focus on those issues most relevant to its preparation.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 1-3
November 2016
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c), the environmental review process for implementation
of CIP projects identified in the 2015 WFMP Update should proceed along the following sequence.
Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to
determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial
Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
2) If the lead agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new
mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within
the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document
would be required.
3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the
program EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a
written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to
determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program
EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d) describes the CEQA review process steps for subsequent
implementation projects as follows:
A program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later
parts of the program. The program EIR can:
1) Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any
significant effects.
2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative
impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole.
3) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permit discussion solely of new effects, which had
not been previously considered.
1.3 CEQA Requirements
This PEIR complies with the criteria, standards, and procedures of the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
(California Administrative Code, Section 15000, et seq.). The OWD is the Lead Agency for the preparation
of this PEIR, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367.
Notice of Preparation/Scoping Process
Scoping is the process followed to ensure that the germane environmental concerns of individuals,
organizations, and agencies about a proposed project are adequately addressed within the project’s
environmental document. Scoping is an integral part of the CEQA process because it allows interested
parties to participate directly in the preparation of the environmental document, and to identify
significant environmental effects and alternatives.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 1-4
November 2016
To initiate the public scoping process for this PEIR in accordance with CEQA, the OWD circulated a Notice
of Preparation (NOP) through direct mailings and published a legal notice in the San Diego Union Tribune
on June 29, 2015. The 30-day public review period for the NOP ended July 30, 2015. Seven comment
letters and a response from the State Clearinghouse (SCH) were received during the NOP public scoping
period. Comment letters were received from the following entities:
■ San Diego County Archaeological Society
■ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
■ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
■ East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association/Otay Mesa Property Owners Association;
■ State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
■ County of San Diego, Planning & Development Services
■ Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
A public scoping meeting was held at the OWD office, located at 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard,
Spring Valley, California on July 14, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting was to provide the
public and governmental agencies with information on the 2015 WFMP Update and the CEQA process,
and to give attendees an opportunity to identify environmental issues and alternatives that should be
considered in the PEIR. Attendees were invited to mail their comment letters to the OWD during the 30-
day NOP public scoping period by no later than July 30, 2015, or leave them with OWD staff following the
scoping meeting to ensure that their concerns would be addressed in the PEIR. Comment forms were also
available for attendees to fill out and leave with OWD staff at the scoping meeting. Although no comment
forms were completed, verbal comments were received from one person at the scoping meeting. Verbal
comments were received from a representative of the East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association/Otay
Mesa Property Owners Association.
Appendix A to this PEIR includes the NOP and associated legal newspaper advertisement; copies of the
written comments received during the NOP public scoping period; and a matrix summarizing all written
and verbal comments received during the NOP public scoping period, and identifying the locations in the
PEIR where the pertinent comments are addressed.
The input received from the NOP public scoping period assisted OWD in identifying the range of actions,
alternatives, issues, and potential effects associated with the 2015 WFMP Update. All issues raised during
the NOP public scoping period were reviewed by OWD to determine the appropriate consideration and
level of analysis.
Draft Program EIR Public Review
The draft PEIR is subject to a 45-day public review and comment period, beginning on August 3, 2016 and
ending on September 17, 2016. “Responsible agencies,” “trustee agencies,” and interested organizations
and individuals can provide written comments on the document during this review period. As defined in
the State CEQA Guidelines, “responsible agencies” are those that have discretionary approval over the
2015 WFMP Update, in addition to the Lead Agency, and “trustee agencies” are those that have
jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update, which
are held in trust for the people of the State of California. There are no “responsible agencies” that have
any discretionary approvals associated with the 2015 WFMP Update. As identified in the NOP comment
Chapter 1 Introduction
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 1-5
November 2016
letters (Appendix A to this PEIR), the CDFW is a “trustee agency” for the migratory birds, anadromous fish,
and endangered plants, animals and their habitats under the protection of the California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) of 1970, as amended, and which may be impacted by implementation of the 2015
WFMP Update. Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is a “trustee agency” for the migratory
birds, anadromous fish, and endangered plants, animals, and their habitats under the protection of the
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA of 1973), as amended. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) is a “trustee agency” for the discharge of dredged or fill material into, including any redeposit of
dredged material within “waters of the United States (U.S.)” and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972.
Written comments will be received by the OWD at the following addresses:
Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
Phone: (619) 670-2219 E-mail: lisa.coburn-boyd@otaywater.gov
Copies of the draft PEIR are available to the public for review at the addresses above, at the OWD website
(www.otaywater.gov), and at the following public libraries:
■ Chula Vista Public Library, Civic Center Branch, 365 F Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910
■ San Diego Public Library, Central Branch, 330 Park Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92101
■ San Diego County Library, Rancho San Diego Branch, 11555 Via Rancho San Diego, El Cajon, CA
92019
Organization of the Program EIR
The content and format of this PEIR are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. This PEIR includes
the following:
■ Executive Summary. Summarizes the proposed OWD 2015 WFMP Update, environmental
impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, recommended
mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce impacts, and the level of significance of impacts
both before and after mitigation. Also identifies areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency
and issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to
mitigated the significant effects.
■ Chapter 1, Introduction. Provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose and
intended use of the PEIR, the PEIR’s compliance with CEQA, and the scope and organizational
format of the EIR.
■ Chapter 2, Environmental Setting. Provides a description of the physical environmental
conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the NOP is published, which
constitute the baseline physical conditions by which OWD will determine if an impact is
significant. This section also includes a discussion of the regional setting, including resources that
are rare or unique to the region, and identifies any inconsistencies between the proposed project
and applicable general and regional plans.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 1-6
November 2016
■ Chapter 3, Project Description. Provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including
its geographical setting, background information on the site’s prior uses, major objectives,
structural and technical characteristics and components, and project construction. This section
also includes a list of discretionary actions that would be required to approve the proposed
project by the Lead Agency and other Responsible and Trustee agencies.
■ Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. Contains project analysis for the various
environmental topics. The subsection for each environmental topic contains a description of the
existing environmental setting of the project site and area, regulatory framework, impacts and
mitigation measures, CEQA checklist items deemed not significant or not applicable to the 2015
WFMP Update, and references.
■ Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations. Provides discussions required by Sections 15126 and
15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, including effects found not to be significant during the PEIR
process, growth inducing impacts of the proposed project, significant environmental effects that
cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented, and significant irreversible
environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed project.
■ Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation. Contains discussion of cumulative impacts, which
is two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which
compound or increase other environmental impacts.
■ Chapter 7, Alternatives. Describes alternatives to the proposed project that could avoid or
substantially lessen significant effects and evaluates their environmental effects in comparison to
the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in this chapter include the No Project Alternative
and the Reduced Footprint Alternative.
■ Chapter 8, Acronyms and Abbreviations. This chapter defines the acronyms and abbreviations
used throughout the PEIR.
■ Chapters 9 and 10. These chapters provide a list of the PEIR preparers, and a list of persons/
agencies to receive the PEIR, respectively.
■ Appendix A. Notice of Preparation and Responses
■ Appendix B. Special Status Species Reported or Potentially Occurring within the Planning Area
■ Appendix C. Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Other Related Environmental Documents
This PEIR incorporates by reference the PEIR for the OWD 2009 WRMP Update (SCH #2008101127), which
was certified by the OWD Board of Directors on February 3, 2010. CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 provides
guidance for incorporation by reference, and requires that relevant information be summarized in the
subsequent environmental document provided that the previous environmental document be made
available for review by the public. The PEIR for the OWD 2009 WRMP is available to the public for review
by appointment only at OWD, 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard, Spring Valley, CA 91978. Due to its
age, the 2002 WRMP PEIR no longer reflects current land use information, and is therefore not
incorporated by reference into this PEIR.
Chapter 2 Environmental Setting
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 2-1
November 2016
Chapter 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the regional and local environmental setting of
the water supply and delivery systems within OWD and generalized information regarding natural
resources and land use.
2.1 Regional Setting
MWD consists of 26 cities and water districts located within southern California. MWD’s primary water
resources are the Colorado River and the California State Water Project (primarily water from northern
California). MWD supplies raw and treated water to SDCWA, a local member agency. SDCWA in turn then
sells water to 23 water agencies within the San Diego region, including OWD.
2.2 Local Setting
The OWD service area is regionally located within south central San Diego County, and is bounded by rural
lands to the east, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District to the north, the Helix Water District to the
northwest, the Sweetwater Authority and the city of San Diego to the west, and the U.S./Mexico
International Border to the south. There are several major transportation routes though which access to
OWD is possible, including Interstate (I-) 8, State Route (SR-) 54, and SR-94 in the north; I-805 to the west;
and SR-125 in the north and south.
The OWD service area consists of 80,320 acres (125.5 square miles), within south central San Diego
County. Elevations within the planning area range from 59 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to 2,605 feet
AMSL. The OWD water service area is divided into five distinct water service areas (see Figure 3-2). The
three northernmost service areas – Regulatory, La Presa and Hillsdale – are collectively referred to as the
North District. The two southernmost service areas – Central and Otay Mesa – are collectively referred to
as the South District. OWD also maintains and operates a recycled water system in the South District
(Central and Otay Mesa operating systems). A brief description of the environmental setting within each
operating system is included below.
2.2.1 North District
Regulatory System
This area spans 27,440 acres within the eastern portion of the planning area. Of the five service areas, the
Regulatory System contains the most undeveloped land, and is just west of the southern edge of Cleveland
National Forest. Elevations within this area range from 289 feet AMSL to 2,605 feet AMSL. This service
Chapter 2 Environmental Setting
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 2-2
November 2016
area contains the following scenic topographic features: San Miguel Mountain, Mother Miguel Mountain,
and a portion of the Jamul Mountains. Dulzura Creek is also located within the Regulatory System and
extends from the Lower Otay Reservoir in the south, paralleling Otay Lakes Road until reaching SR-94, and
then follows SR-94 to the southeast corner of the service area. The service area contains the following
vegetation types: marsh and wetland, forest, grassland (native, non-native and vernal pools), riparian
communities, coastal scrub and chaparral, and woodland.
La Presa System
This service area is 5,882 acres within the northwestern portion of the planning area. The majority of the
topography in the La Presa System is relatively flat. The Sweetwater Reservoir is a scenic aquatic feature
that lies just outside the southerly boundary of the service area. The majority of this area (approximately
60 percent) is urban; the remaining area contains the following vegetation types: coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, grassland, riparian, and wetland.
Hillsdale System
The Hillsdale System, in the northern portion of the planning area, comprises 9,569 acres. Elevations range
from 325 feet AMSL to 2,167 feet AMSL, and this area contains one scenic topographic feature: McGinty
Mountain. In addition, Jamacha Valley and Sweetwater River traverse this service area. Approximately 50
percent of this area is urban; the remaining portions consist of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, and
wetlands.
2.2.2 South District
Central Area System
The Central Area System is located in eastern Chula Vista and consists of 27,702 acres. Elevations range
from 59 feet AMSL to 2,369 feet AMSL. Although there are no scenic topographic features within this
service area, the Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs are scenic aquatic features that lie just outside the
easterly boundary. In addition, Poggi Canyon, Otay Valley and Otay River traverse the southerly service
area boundary. Approximately 40 percent of this area is urban; the remaining portions contain the
following vegetation types: coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, riparian and wetlands.
Otay Mesa System
The Otay Mesa System contains rolling hills, open mesas, river valleys, canyons, and mountain ranges with
steep, rugged terrain. Elevations range from 213 feet AMSL to 1,522 feet AMSL. Otay Valley and Otay
River traverse the northerly service area boundary. The majority of this area (approximately 60 percent)
is agricultural; the remaining portions consist of urban areas and the following vegetation types: coastal
sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, and grassland.
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-1
November 2016
Chapter 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Introduction
This PEIR has been prepared in compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of CEQA
(Public Resources Section 21000, et seq.) and the State of California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations [CCR], Section 15000 et seq.) to address the potential environmental impacts resulting from
implementation of the OWD 2015 WFMP Update. OWD is the Lead Agency for the preparation of this
PEIR, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15367.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the proposed project for the public, reviewing agencies and
decision-makers. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, a complete project description must
contain the following information: (a) the precise location and boundaries of the proposed project, shown
on a detailed map, along with a regional map of the project’s location; (b) a statement of the underlying
purpose of the project and the objectives (or goals) sought by the proposed project; (c) a description of
the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and (d) a discussion of the intended
uses of this PEIR, including discretionary actions (refer to Chapter 1, Introduction, of this PEIR).
3.2 Project Location
As shown in Figure 3-1, the OWD service area is regionally located within south central San Diego County,
and is bounded by rural lands to the east, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District to the north, the Helix
Water District to the northwest, the Sweetwater Authority and the city of San Diego to the west, and the
U.S./Mexico International Border to the south. There are several major transportation routes through
which access across the OWD service area is possible, including I-8, SR- 54, and SR-94 in the north; I-805
to the west; and SR-125 in the north and south.
The OWD service area consists of 80,320 acres (125.5 square miles), and provides water service to
approximately 217,000 residents. The OWD boundaries encompass a large portion of eastern Chula Vista,
a portion of the city of San Diego on Otay Mesa, and various unincorporated areas, including Rancho San
Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, Otay Mesa, and areas adjacent to El Cajon and La Mesa. An additional
11 square miles on the OWD’s eastern flank are designated by the San Diego Local Area Formation
Commission (LAFCO) as being within the OWD’s Area of Influence (AOI) (also known as Sphere of
Influence, or SOI), but outside its current active service area.
The OWD water service area is divided into five distinct water service areas (Figure 3-2). The three
northernmost service areas – Hillsdale, La Presa and Regulatory – are collectively referred to as the North
District (Figure 3-2a through Figure 3-2c). The two southernmost service areas – Central and Otay Mesa –
are collectively referred to as the South District (Figure 3-2d through Figure 3-2e). The North District serves
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-2
November 2016
San Diego County communities above Sweetwater Reservoir; and, the South District serves the Chula Vista
and Otay Mesa.
In addition to water supply, OWD also provides sewage collection, treatment, and disposal services to
users within a small portion of the North District. OWD provides sewer service only within the Jamacha
drainage basin in the northern portion of its service area where it also operates a small water reclamation
plant. Sewer service for the remainder of the area within OWD boundaries is provided by other public
entities. OWD also maintains and operates a recycled water system in the South District, primarily within
the eastern portion of Chula Vista, in OWD’s Central service area.
3.3 Background
OWD was authorized as a California Special District by the State Legislature in 1956, under the provisions
of the Municipal Water District Law of 1911, and thereby gained its entitlement to imported water. As a
member agency of SDCWA, OWD purchases all of the potable water that it delivers from the SDCWA. The
SDCWA is responsible for transmission of the imported water supply within San Diego County to its
member agencies, and is itself a member of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
The existing potable water supply to OWD comes from the SDCWA through four separate connections to
Pipeline No. 4 within the Second Aqueduct route of the SDCWA Flow Control Facility. OWD also receives
treated potable water from the R.M. Levy Water Treatment Plan (WTP), which is operated by the Helix
Water District. The Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility operated by OWD and the South Bay
Water Reclamation Plant operated by the City of San Diego both supply recycled water for users within
the OWD service area.
In 2002, OWD developed a comprehensive WRMP that combined all previously existing master plans and
facility plans into one system-wide plan outlining the CIP projects required to serve their customers. In
2009, OWD updated the WRMP. The following three phases were identified in the 2009 WRMP Update:
Phase I (2015-2016), Phase II (2017-2022), Phase IIIA (2023-2050), and Phase IIIB (2023-2050). Minor
updates to the 2009 WRMP were completed in 2010 and 2013.
Since 2002, OWD has continued to improve its potable water facilities to meet the water demands
associated with growth. OWD has also continued to improve and expand its recycled water facilities to
serve irrigation demands and conserve potable water supplies. The CIP is updated annually to reflect
system improvements and to identify future needs for budgeting purposes.
OWD has explored opportunities to expand its local resources as a means to offset the risk of interrupted
imported water supplies. To address the uncertainties surrounding imported water supplies due to
potential drought shortages or emergency seismic conditions, in addition to the rising costs of imported
water, OWD has prepared an IRP to develop a flexible, long-term strategy for its future supply portfolio.
The IRP defines a course for OWD’s development of local water supply projects. To the extent the supply
plans identified in the IRP affect the planning of OWD’s potable and recycled water systems, they are
incorporated into the Master Plan.
JAMUL
RANCHO SAN DIEGO
SYCUAN RESERVATION
SPRING VALLEY
EASTLAKE
OTAY MESA
OTAY RANCH
BONITA
Sweetwater Reservoir
OtayReservoir
LakeMurray
US
-
M
E
X
I
C
O
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
B
O
R
D
E
R
Pacific Ocean
MissionBay
Sweetw
a
t
e
r
R
i
v
e
r
Otay River
San Diego Bay
South BayWater ReclamantionPlant
R.W. ChapmanWater RecyclingFacility
!"^$!"a$
Ag
!"_$
%&s(
Aä !"_$
AË
?p
Aä!"^$
%&s(
SANTEE
CHULA VISTA
CORONADO
EL CAJON
IMPERIALBEACH
LA MESA
LEMONGROVE
NATIONAL CITY
COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO
S.D.COUNTY
SAN DIEGO
Regional Location MapFigure 3-1
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update
Source: Atkins 2014, SanGIS 2014
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map.mxd
LovelandReservoir
OWD
Otay Water District Area of Influence (AOI)
Municipal Boundary
Otay Water District Jurisdiction
0 2 41MilesI
!(
#0")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
AË
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
2015 WFMP Planning Area & CIP Projects
Figure 3-2
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 3-2 WFMP Planning Area CIP Projects Coversheet.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
")
")
")
")
")
")
HILLSDALESYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"_$
P2412
P2411
P2256
P2248
P2202
P2500
P20
5
8
P2586
P2156
P2
0
5
6P2188
P25
0
0
P2
0
5
3
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
2015 WFMP Planning Area & Hillsdale CIP Projects
Figure 3-2a
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
7/22/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 3-2 WFMP Planning Area CIP Projects Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
!(
!(
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
LA PRESASYSTEM
!"_$
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2431
P2233
P2391
P2393
P2511
P2585
P2407
P21
9
6
P2
5
1
6
P2
1
9
5
P2
5
1
1
P2148
P2
5
1
1
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
2015 WFMP Planning Area & La Presa CIP Projects
Figure 3-2b
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
7/22/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 3-2 WFMP Planning Area CIP Projects Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
")
!(
")
")
")
")
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
AË
AË
Upper Otay Reservoir
P2412
P2037
P2002
P2576
P2142
P2174
P2411
P2575
P2040
P2256
P2233
P2517
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2196
P2
1
9
8
P25
8
8
P2586
P2576
P2040
P2197
P2
5
8
7
P2
1
3
8
P2
2
0
4 P2171
P2
1
9
0
P2156
P20
5
6
P2135
P2188
P2137
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P2203
P259
1
P2
0
5
3
P243
5
P2033
P2058
P24
3
0
P2181
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
2015 WFMP Planning Area & Regulatory CIP Projects
Figure 3-2c
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
7/22/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 3-2 WFMP Planning Area CIP Projects Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
#0 ")
")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2437 P2577
P2578
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2228
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2202
P2585
P2407
P2235
P2590
P2150
P237
4
P2580
P2056
P2586
P2576
P2197
P
2
1
0
4
P2
5
8
7
P
2
2
0
4
P25
1
6
P2107
P
2
5
8
2
P2116
P
2
3
9
8
P240
4
P2596
P2188
P2400
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P258
3
P2203
P240
3
P2148
P21
2
2
P213
5
P25
9
1
P2
5
1
1
P2
0
5
3
P243
5
P245
1
P2058
P243
0
P21
8
1
P2511
R
2
0
8
3
R2085
R2
0
3
7
R2043
R
2
0
8
5
R2126 R2133
R2079
R2042R2082
R2038
R2132
R2080
R2134
R2
1
3
5
R
2
1
2
8
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
OWD Jurisdiction
Pipeline
Area of Influence
2015 WFMP Planning Area & Central Area CIP Projects
Figure 3-2d
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 3-2d WFMP PlanningArea CIP Projects.mxd
I 0 0.7 1.40.35
Miles
1 in = 1.5 milesPotable Water Pipelines
#0
#0
P2405
P2554
P2603
P2599
P2580
P2598
P2
5
9
5
P
2
1
0
4
P2554 P2597
P2600
P2107
P
2
4
0
2
P
2
5
8
2
P2553
P2116
P
2
3
9
8
P240
4
P2596
P2106
P2581
P258
3
P240
3
P2590
R
2
0
8
3
R2136
R2137
R2085
R2
0
3
7
R2043
R
2
0
8
5
R2126
R2133
R2042
R2038
R2082
R2132
R2134
R2080 R21
3
5
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 milesRecycled Water Pipelines
See detail for Recycled Water Pipelines
Recycled Water Pipeline Detail
")
!(
")
$1
OTAY MESASYSTEM
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
P2579
P2228
P2392
P2482
P2603
P2589
P2602
P2590
P2580
P2106
P2
3
7
4
P2
5
8
2
P2600
P2583
P21
2
2
P
2
4
5
1
P2
4
5
1
R2136
R2043
R2133
R2042
R2134
R2
1
3
5
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
2015 WFMP Planning Area & Otay Mesa CIP Projects
Figure 3-2e
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
7/22/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 3-2 WFMP Planning Area CIP Projects Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-10
November 2016
3.4 Water Facilities Master Plan
3.4.1 Purpose
The purpose of the 2015 WFMP is to revise the OWD 2009 WRMP; update planning criteria and OWD’s
hydraulic system models; map out water and recycled water facility improvements; update OWD’s CIP;
and identify adaptive responses to changed conditions.
The WFMP’s forecast is based on the latest regional growth forecasts developed by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG), and is consistent with the adopted land use plans of all
jurisdictions within the district boundaries. OWD coordinates with these jurisdictions through its
development of Urban Water Management Plans, and through other ongoing coordination to ensure land
use plans account for the availability of water supplies and water service infrastructure. Consistent with
the LAFCO AOI designation, the 2015 WFMP Update accounts for projected development within the AOI
to the extent consistent with adopted land use plans and to the extent these lands are expected to annex
into the OWD. These areas include the Otay Ranch Villages 13 and 1514, and the San Ysidro Mountain
Ranch/Planning Area 17 area. The AOI also includes the Sycuan Indian Reservation, located to the
northeast of the OWD service boundary, but these lands are not included in the demand forecast.
3.4.2 Goals and Objectives
The primary goals and objectives for the 2015 WFMP Update include the following actions:
■ Update Planning Criteria and the District’s Hydraulic System Models: Review and update, as
necessary, the District’s system performance criteria, and update the District’s InfoWater system
hydraulic models to account for new development and to maintain integration with the District’s
GIS system.
■ Map Out Water and Recycled Water Facility Improvements: Identify and prioritize the District’s
facility needs, including transmission, storage, and pumping facilities, to serve projected future
conditions.
■ Update OWD CIP: Update the District’s near-term (2020) and long-term (2050) CIP, based on a
new demand forecast, new supply options and identified facility needs.
■ Identify Adaptive Responses to Changed Conditions: Identify how needed facility improvements
and CIP items would change should future demand and supply conditions vary from baseline
assumptions.
3.4.3 Facilities Overview
The CIP projects identified in the 2015 WFMP Update can be classified into five general categories:
storage, pump station, pipeline, water supply, and miscellaneous CIP projects. The following is an
overview of definitions, issues, and construction information associated with each of these categories.
Details for each category of projects are provided in Section 3.4.4, with the exception of miscellaneous
CIP projects, which are described in Table 3-1.
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-11
November 2016
Storage
Storage projects generally involve the construction and/or alteration of water-holding reservoirs. Typical
reservoir sites consist of a storage tank (reservoir) constructed on a level, graded pad; underground water
supply and delivery pipelines; fencing for security purposes; and an access road for maintenance
purposes. Placement of storage projects is essential, because optimizing the elevation at which a storage
project is located can greatly increase efficiency by reducing the amount of pumping (energy) needed to
move water to and from the reservoir. In general, reservoir capacity is reported in units of millions of
gallons (MG).
Pump Stations
Pump station projects involve the movement of water uphill, or to higher pressure zones, and pressure
reducing valves are used when water is moving to lower pressure zones (downhill). Pump stations typically
consist of buildings containing pumps, electric power-line connections, pipeline connections, fencing, and
access roads. Pressure reducing valves are installed along pipelines. In general, pump capacity is reported
in units of gallons per minute (gpm) or millions of gallons per day (MGD).
Pipeline
Pipeline projects involve trench excavation, preparing the bed for pipe placement, laying the pipe in the
trench, filling the trench, and restoring the disturbed surface area. Where it is not feasible to install a
pipeline within a street right-of-way, OWD makes every effort to use the shortest possible route between
connection points to minimize ground-level impacts. In this practice, OWD considers factors such as
engineering principles and site-specific constraints. The CIP pipeline projects identified in the 2015 WFMP
Update include transmission and distribution lines. Transmission lines generally transport large quantities
of water over broad areas. Distribution lines generally have lower capacities, and transport water to
specific locations. For example, recycled water delivered from the City of San Diego South Bay Water
Reclamation Plant travels through a transmission line to several reservoirs within the OWD service area.
From these reservoirs, distribution pipelines deliver the recycled water to the various communities.
Pipeline size is generally reported in inches, which refers to the pipe’s diameter.
Water Supply
Water supply projects involve a variety of project types, including pipelines, desalination facilities, and
groundwater well production systems.
Miscellaneous CIP
Similar to the water supply projects described above, the miscellaneous CIP projects involve a variety of
project types, including a disinfection facility, a pressure reducing stationgroundwater well system, and
an interconnection facility (see Table 3-1).
Table 3-1 Miscellaneous CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Phase
P2405 Central PL - 624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road II
P2437 Central Dis 624-4 Disinfection Facility IIIA
P2517 Hillsdale Helix - Otay Interconnection, Chase Avenue IIIA
P2575 Regulatory 1485/1296 PRS – Presilla Drive and Jamul Highlands Road IIIA
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-12
November 2016
Phase IIIA (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2437 Central Dis 624-4 Disinfection Facility --
P2482 Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well System --
P2517 Hillsdale Helix - Otay Interconnection, Chase Avenue --
3.4.4 Description of Projects
The projects identified in the 2015 WFMP Update include many of the improvements that are contained
in the approved 2009 WRMP Update.
3.4.4.1 Potable Water System
The potable water system improvements recommended in the 2015 WFMP Update would consist of
several major pump stations, reservoirs and transmission mains to expand service throughout the district
and resolve existing storage, pumping and water supply deficiencies (Table 3-2 through Table 3-5). Please
note that any distribution pipelines and laterals connecting to the CIP transmission mains are considered
“developer projects,” and, therefore, would be the development project proponent’s responsibility to
plan, fund, and install. Such pipelines would typically be 12-inch and smaller in diameter and serve specific
customers. As a result, some of the recommended CIP transmission main alignments identified in the 2015
WFMP Update may change as development plans are revised or refined in the future. As development
projects are proposed, the developers will be required to prepare Sub-Area Master Plans. These plans
define the distribution pipelines required to serve developer projects, and either confirm or revise the
sizes and locations of the necessary regional CIP facilities identified in the 2015 WFMP Update.
Storage Projects
The CIP potable water storage projects shown on Figure 3-2a and listed in Table 3-2 are required in order
to meet the Phase II, Phase IIIA and Phase IIIB storage needs of the OWD potable water system.
Table 3-2 Potable Water Storage CIP Projects(1)
Project No. System Project Description Capacity (MG)
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2040 Regulatory Res - 1655-1 Reservoir, 0.5 MG 0.5
Total Phase II 0.5
Phase IIIA (2023 – 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2584 La Presa Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions --
P2037 Central Res - 980-3 Reservoir, Resort Parcel, 4.0 MG (previously 13 MG)(1) 4
P2142 Regulatory Res - 1296-4 Reservoir, Village 14, 2.0 MG 2
P2431 Central Res - 980-4 Reservoir, 8.0 MG (previously 5 MG)(2) 8
P2576 Central Res - 980-5 Reservoir, Village 14, 2.0 MG(3) 2
Total Phase IIIA 16.0
Phase IIIB (2023 – 2050) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2228 Otay Mesa Res - 870-2 Reservoir, 7.0 MG (previously 10 MG) 7
P2233 La Presa Res - 640-3 Emergency Reservoir, 10.0 MG 10
P2235 Central Res - 624-4 Emergency Reservoir, 30.0 MG (previously 40 MG) 30
Total Phase IIIB 47.0
Total Phases II & III 63.5
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-13
November 2016
Table 3-2 Potable Water Storage CIP Projects(1)
Project No. System Project Description
Capacity
(MG)
(1) Village 13 Resort Reservoir.
(2) This reservoir will replace Reservoir 980-1 and provide increased zone emergency storage.
(3) New Village 14 Reservoir at 980 elevation co located with 1296-2 PS
Pump Station Projects
The CIP potable water pump station projects shown on Figure 3-2a and listed in Table 3-3 are required in
order to meet the Phase II, Phase IIIA and Phase IIIB pumping needs of the OWD potable water system.
Table 3-3 Potable Water Pump Station CIP Projects(1)
Project No. System Project Description
Capacity
(gpm)
Phase II (2017 – 2022)
P2393 La Presa PS - Pointe Hydro Pump Station Expansion, from 240 to 400 gpm 6400
P2579 Central PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Rehabilitation -
P2174 Regulatory PS - 1090-1 Pump Station Replacement and Expansion, from 280 to 400 gpm 400
Total Phase II 1,000800
Phase IIIA (2023 – 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2002 Regulatory PS - 1296-2 Proctor Valley Pump Station, 4,000 gpm 4,000
P2256 Hillsdale PS - 978-2 Pump Station, 1,500 gpm 1,500
P2391 Central to
La Presa PS - Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm 10,000
P2577 Central PS - 980-2 Pump Station Expansion, from 12,000 to 16,000 gpm 164,000
P2578 Central PS - 711-2 Pump Station (PS 711-1 replacement), from 10,000 to 164,000 gpm(1) 1614,000
P2585 La Presa PS - 1200-2 Pump Station, 1,000 gpm 1,000
P2202 Regulatory PS - 1296-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 2,900 to 6,000 gpm 6,0006,450
P2248 Regulatory PS - 944-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 3,000 to 6,000 gpm 6,000
P2379 Regulatory PS - 832-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 4,200 to 6,800 gpm 6,800
P2411 Regulatory PL - 1296/944 PRS Upgrade 1296-1 Pump Station Site --
P2412 Regulatory PL - 944/832 PRS Upgrade 944-1 Pump Station Site --
Total Phase IIIA 67,30053,750
Phase IIIB (2023 – 2050) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2392 Central PS - Lower Otay PS Replacement and Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm(2) 18,000
Total Phase IIIB 18,000
Total Phases II & III 86,30072,550
(1) Includes new suction manifold to new pump station.
(2) Depending on new supply (Desalinated Water vs San Diego Pure Water) a new pump station is required to convey water
from either City of San Diego WTP or from Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance Project.
Pipeline Projects
The CIP projects listed in Table 3-4 are required in order to meet the Phase II, Phase IIIA and Phase IIIB
transmission pipeline needs of the OWD potable water system. For the CIP projects involving pipeline
installation within existing roads, OWD has and will continue to coordinate with local jurisdictions to
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-14
November 2016
ensure the timing of this work is coincident with roadway improvements performed under a local agency
public improvement or CIP project. For the CIP projects involving installation of new pipelines within newly
constructed roads, OWD has and will continue to coordinate with the private developers responsible for
new road construction to ensure concurrent timing of both projects. Since many of these CIP pipeline
projects are assumed to be installed concurrently with existing road improvements by local agencies or
new road construction by private developers, they would not require open cut and traffic control. In the
event the timing of pipeline installation within existing roadways does not coincide with the local agency
public road improvements, then open cut trenching and traffic control measures would be required.
Table 3-4 Potable Water Pipeline CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Length (ft)
Phase II (2017 – 2022)
P2400 Central PL - 20-in Pipeline Replacement, 711 Zone, Otay Lakes Road at Santa Paula 3,800
P2403 Central PL - 12-in, 624 Zone, Heritage Road - Olympic/Otay Valley 5,300
P2405 Central PL - 624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road --
P2451(1) Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System 22,000
P2516 La Presa PL - 12-in, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road - Darby/Osage 2,500
P2553 Central Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation --
P2574 Hillsdale PL - 12-Inch and 14-inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 and 978 Zone,
Vista Grande, Pence Drive 6,900
P2595 Central PL – 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N – Heritage Road, Main St/Energy Way 1,200
Total Phase II 41,70033,600
Phase IIIA (2023 – 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2104 Central PL - 12-in, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock Mountain 1,800
P2106 Central PL - 12-in, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Rock Mountain/Otay Valley 3,4004,500
P2107 Central PL - 16-in, 711 Zone, Rock Mtn Road - La Media Road (previously 12-in) 2,4003,800
P2116 Central PL - 16-in, 711 Zone, Rock Mtn Road - SR 125/EastLake Pkwy (previously 12-in) 3,000
P2135 Central PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, Otay Lakes Road to Village 13 54,500
P2137 Central PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, Village 13 to 980-3 Reservoir 3,5002,600
P2138 Central PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, 980-3 Reservoir Transmission PL 2,2001,600
P2148 La Presa PL - 16-in, 850 Zone, Jamacha Boulevard - Sweetwater Springs/Trace 5,200
P2150 Central PL - 16-in, 458 Zone, East Palomar Street - Medical Center/Raven 900
P2156 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1485 Zone, Olive Vista Drive Parallel 2,500
P2190 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1485 Zone, Jamul Highlands 2,3001,500
P2398 Central PL - 20-in, 624 Zone, Paseo Ladera between Telegraph/Olympic Upsizing 2,8002,780
P2402 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, La Media Road - Village 7/Otay Valley 2,5006,700
P2404 Central PL - 12-in, 624 Zone, Rock Mtn Road - Village 4/Otay Valley 3,60010,000
P2500 Hillsdale Padre Dam - Otay Interconnection, Dehesa Valley 3,900
P2511(1) La Presa /
Central PL – Otay Interconnect (North District - South District Interconnection) 31,000
P2528 Central PL – 30-inch, 624 Zone, Manifold between Res 624-1 & 624-2 8,000
P2554 Central PL – 12-in. and 624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue
624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue 2,000--
P2575 Regulatory 1485/1296 PRS - Presilla Drive and Jamul Highlands Road 500
P2583 Central PL - 20-in, 624 Zone, Otay Mesa Interconnect 711 PRS Bypass 5,800
P2589 Otay Mesa PL - 24-in, 871 Zone, Donovan Prison 600
P2590 Central PL - 20-in, 624 Zone, Village 7 6,4005,800
P2033 Regulatory PL - 16-in, 1296 Zone, Melody Road - Campo/Presilla 6,400
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-15
November 2016
Table 3-4 Potable Water Pipeline CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Length (ft)
P2053 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 944 Zone, Campo Road - 944-1 Pump Station/944 Reservoirs 5,800
P2056 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1296 Zone, Jamul Drive Replacement 3,0002,100
P2058 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road - Pioneer/Campo (previously 24-in) 8,0007,900
P2122 Central PL - 20-in, 711 Zone, OTC to Hunte Parkway 5,5005,800
P2171 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road - Pioneer/Melody (previously 30-in) 2,200
P2181 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road - Proctor Valley PS/Millar Ranch
(previously 30-in) 10,50010,000
P2188 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 832 Zone, Campo Road - Steele Canyon/944-1 Pump Station 3,400
P2197 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 832 Zone, 832-1 Pump Station to 832 Reservoirs 1,800
P2198 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 832 Zone, 832 Reservoirs to Fair Oaks Drive 5,100
P2203 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road - Melody (previously 30-in) 5,0003,100
P2204 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Pioneer Way - Proctor Valley/1296 Reservoirs
(previously 24-in) 3,100
P2407 La Presa Dictionary Hill Fireflow Capacity pipeline Improvements --
P2430 Central PL - 20-in in Proctor Valley Road 8,500
P2435 Central PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley Road to Proctor Valley PS 6,5008,500
P2580 Central PL - 12-in, 980 Zone, Bob Pletcher Pkwy 125 Freeway Crossing 1,000
P2581 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, Santa Victoria Road - Olympic/Heritage 3,600
P2582 Central PL - 20-in, 711 Zone, Eastlake Pkwy between Olympic and Birch Upsizing 2,5002,400
P2586 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 832 Zone, Campo Road - Florence Terrace / Steele Canyon 1,500
P2587 Regulatory PL - 16-in, 1296 Zone, Jefferson Road - Campo/Lyons Valley 1,900
P2588 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1296 Zone, Jamul Highlands Road to Presilla Drive 1,100
P2591 Regulatory PL - 16-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley to 1296-4 Reservoir 9,5005,800
P2596 Central PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N - Main St, Heritage Rd/Wolf Canyon 3,200
P2597 Central PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Main St, Wolf Canyon Bridge 1,500
P2598 Central PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 8W - Main St, La Media/Village 4 1,000
P2599 Central PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 8W - Otay Valley Rd, School/Village 8E 900
P2600 Central PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 8E 2,100
P2602 Central PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Otay Valley Rd, SR 125 Bridge 500
P2603 Central PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, Hunte Parkway, SR 125 Bridge 600
Total Phase IIIA 205,000166,780
Phase IIIB (2023 – 2050) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2195 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 640 Zone, Campo Road - Regulatory Site/Millar Ranch 4,100
P2196 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 640 Zone, Millar Ranch Road to 832-1 Pump Station 2,200
P2374 Otay Mesa PL - 30-in, 870 Zone, 870-2 Reservoir to 870-1 Reservoir 400
Total Phase IIIB 6,700
Total Phases II & III 253,400209,080
(1) CEQA environmental review has been completed.
3.4.4.2 Recycled Water System
The recycled water system improvements recommended in the 2015 WFMP Update would consist of
several major pump stations, reservoirs and transmission mains to expand service throughout OWD and
resolve existing storage and pumping deficiencies. As with the potable water system, any distribution
pipelines and laterals connecting to the CIP recycled water transmission mains would be the development
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-16
November 2016
project proponent’s responsibility to plan, fund, and install. Some of the recommended CIP transmission
main alignments identified in the 2015 WFMP Update may change as development plans are revised or
refined in the future; however, it is assumed for purposes of analysis in this PEIR that they would be
installed within planned roadways.
Storage, Pipeline and Pumping Projects
The CIP projects listed in Table 3-5 are required in order to meet the Phase II and Phase IIIA storage and
pumping needs of the OWD recycled water system.
Table 3-5 Recycled Water CIP Projects
Project No. System Project Description Length (ft)
Phase I (Present – 2026)
R2125 Central RecPRS - 927/680 PRS Improvements, Otay Lakes Road (Automation/SCADA)
R2084 Central RecPL - 20-in, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media 2,0003,000
R2028 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, Heritage Road to Main Street 6,300
R2047 Central RecPL - 12-in, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock Mountain 1,300
R2127 Central RecPL - 8-in, 815/680 Zones, Main Street - La Media/Magdalena, 815/680 PRS 1,7001,400
Total Phase I 11,30012,000
Phase IIA (2027 – Ultimate)
R2129 Central RecPS - 680-1 PS Upgrade, Engine-Driven Pump Addition -
R2130 Central RecPS - 944-1 PS Upgrade, Engine-Driven Pump Addition -
Total Phase IIA -
Phase IIB (2027 – Ultimate)
R2080 Central RecPL - 24-in, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway between Brandywine/Santa Victoria 3,8003,700
R2082 Central RecPL - 24-in, 680 Zone, Santa Victoria - Olympic Parkway/Heritage 3,500
R2083 Central RecPL - 20-in, 680 Zone Olympic Parkway - Heritage Rd 110
R2085 Central RecPL - 20-in, 680 Zone, La Media - State/Olympic 2,500
R2128 Central RecPL - 16-in, 944 Zone, Hunte Pwy/Proctor Valley Rd - North of Otay Lakes Rd 7,300
Total Phase IIB 17,21017,110
Phase IIC (2027 – Ultimate)
R2037 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Rock Mountain/Hunte Parkway 4,40013,900
R2038 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, Village 3N - Main St, Heritage Rd/Wolf Canyon 3,3003,200
R2042 Central RecPL - 8-in, 815 Zone, Hunte Parkway - SR-125/Eastlake 2,700
R2043 Central RecPL - 8-in, 815 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - Olympian HS/SR 125 1,000
R2079 Central RecPL - 6-in, 450 Zone, Otay Valley Road, Entertainment, 680/450 PRS 3,0004,000
R2126 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, Main Street - Wolf Canyon Bridge 1,500
R2131 Central Res - 680-2 Storage Reservoir (2.0 MG) (At Sunset View Park) -
R2132 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, Main Street - Village 4 3,600
R2133 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, Otay Valley Road - Village 8E 2,100
R2134 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, Otay Valley Road - Village 9 4,000
R2135 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, University/Village 10 4,200
R2136 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, Otay Valley Road, SR 125 Bridge 500
R2137 Central RecPL - 8-in, 815 Zone, Hunte parkway, SR 125 Bridge 600
Total Phase IIC 30,90041,300
Total Phase II 48,11058,400
Total Phases I & II 59,41070,410
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-17
November 2016
3.4.4.3 2008 WRMP Water Supply Projects
Section 3.4.4.3 of the 2008 WRMP PEIR identified water supply projects which remain under consideration
for future development. Table 3-6 below lists five of the projects that were carried forward from the 2008
WRMP that were either previously evaluated or will be evaluated separately under CEQA. These projects
will not be evaluated further in this document.
Table 3-6 2008 WRMP CIP Projects
Project No. Project Description
R2089(1) North District Recycled Water Concept
R2093 City of Chula Vista Tertiary Treatment Stripping Plant
R2450 San Diego Formation Brackish Groundwater Demineralization Project
R2481 Middle Sweetwater Conjunctive Use Project
R2482(1) Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well
(1) Evaluated under the 2008 WRMP PEIR.
R2089. The North District Recycled Water Concept would involve the use of recycled water within the
Middle Sweetwater River Basin to supply this water to the North District markets. This project would
consist of the installation of 6-inch, 8-inch, or 10-inch diameter recycled water pipelines from the existing
R.W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility to nearby users. The project would also entail the installation of
pipelines within existing right-of-ways to feed into two existing recycled water storage tanks, Res 832-1
and Res 832-2.
R2093. The City of Chula Vista Tertiary Treatment Stripping Plant Project would involve construction of a
tertiary treatment plant and pipeline to produce and deliver recycled water for delivery to customers in
the Central area. The locations of these project components have not been determined at this time. The
City of Chula Vista would be the CEQA Lead Agency for this project.
P2450. The San Diego Formation Brackish Groundwater Demineralization Project would involve potential
extraction of brackish groundwater from the San Diego Formation. The locations of the demineralization
treatment and transport facilities have not been determined at this time. The OWD would be the CEQA
Lead Agency.
P2481. The Middle Sweetwater Conjunctive Use Project could produce a sustainable yield of local potable
water supply (possibly up to 2,500 AF/yr). The precise location of this project has not been determined at
this time. The OWD would be the CEQA Lead Agency.
P2482. The Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well Development Project would involve the installation of a
well and associated water treatment system within an industrial area located in south Otay Mesa.
3.4.5 Phasing
The potable water CIP phases for the 2015 WFMP include the following:
■ Phase I (2015‐2016). These include projects that are currently in design or under construction. An
example of such a project is the 870‐2 pump station replacement project under design. These
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-18
November 2016
projects are noted but are not included in the PEIR because environmental review has been
addressed in previous documents.
■ Phase II (2017‐2022). These CIPs typically represent the high priority projects necessary to
address a current water system deficiency and provide backbone infrastructure to support
development projects. These projects are budgeted over a six year revenue cycle for the District
and are included in the current water rate structure and capacity fee program. An example of
such a project is the 980-3 reservoir expansion project necessary to increase storage in the 980
zone which is currently deficient.
■ Phase IIIA (2023‐2050). These CIPs represent projects that may not be urgent but are critical to
meeting future growth, and water system design criteria and the District has sufficient time to
implement the project. The horizon year for sizing infrastructure is SANDAG Series 13 population
for year 2050. These projects present a long‐term CIP that may be used by the District in
formulating a 10‐year revenue plan. An example of such a project is the 980-2 pump station
expansion project necessary to increase pumping capacity based on forecasted water demand
increases. It is assumed under Phase IIIA that the District’s “baseline” assumption for water supply
includes either the Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance Project or San Diego’s Pure Water.
■ Phase IIIB (2023‐2050). Under Phase IIIB, the District’s “baseline” assumptions for water supply,
the Rosarito Desalinated Water Conveyance Project and San Diego’s Pure Water, are not
implemented and the District continues to rely on the SDCWA for water supply. These CIP projects
primarily represent system reliability projects necessary to meet SDCWA outages and District
system design criteria. An example of such a project is the 870‐2 reservoir in Otay Mesa.
As shown in Table 3-5, the phasing for recycled water CIPs is different than the potable water CIP phasing.
The recycled water projects are divided into two phases that corresponds with the contract renewal date
with the City of San Diego for the purchase of recycled water from its South Bay Water Reclamation Plant.
The terms of the contract renewal may influence the CIP’s needed for recycled water. Phasing and timing
for the recommended CIP projects may be accelerated or deferred as required to account for changes in
development project schedules, availability of land or right‐of‐way for construction, project funding
limitations, environmental concerns or other considerations.
3.4.6 Permits, Approvals, and Regulatory Requirements
Numerous federal, state and local regulations and permit requirements would be applicable to the
implementation of the 2015 WFMP (Table 3-7). OWD, or its contractors, would be required to comply
with all applicable requirements, unless by exception of Government Code Section 53091. Because zoning
ordinances do not apply to the location or construction of facilities used for the production, generation,
storage or transmission of water, this PEIR will address only those specific objectives, policies and
standards from the planning agencies of communities potentially affected by the future CIP projects that
support the implementation of water storage and transmission facilities.
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-19
November 2016
Table 3-7 Potential Permits and Approvals
Agency/Department Permit/Approval Action Associated With or Required For
Federal Agencies
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation,
Biological Opinion (Endangered Species Act [ESA] 16
U.S.C. 1531-1544)
Activity where there may be an effect on federally listed endangered/
threatened/ proposed species (applies to projects with federal
involvement).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Individual/Nationwide Section 404 Permit
(CWA, 33 USC 1341) Discharge of dredge/fill into Waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act Permit Activities, including the placement of structures, affecting navigable
waters.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Section 106 Consultation, National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA)
Opportunity to comment if project may affect cultural resources listed or
eligible for listing on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
U.S. Department of Transportation
(USDOT), Federal Highway
Administration (FHA)
Encroachment Permits Consider issuance of permit for transmission line crossing of federally
funded highways.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Explosive User’s Permit Consider issuance of permit to purchase, store and use explosives for site
preparation.
State Agencies
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit Stormwater discharges associated with construction activity.
Waste Discharge Requirements (Water Code 13000 et
seq.)
Discharge of waste that might affect groundwater or surface water
(nonpoint-source) quality.
401 Certification (CWA, 33 USC 1341. If the project
requires USACE 404 Permit) Discharge into waters and wetlands (see USACE Section 404 Permit).
Permit to Operate a Public Water System Any person who plans to operate a public water system must obtain
permit.
California State Lands Commission Right-of-Way Permit (Land Use Lease) Consider issuance of a grant of right-of-way across state land.
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW)
California ESA
Activity where a listed candidate, threatened, or endangered species
under California ESA may be present in the project area and a state
agency is acting as lead agency for CEQA compliance. Consider issuance
of a Section 2081 incidental take permit for state-only listed species and
a Section 2081.1 consistency determination for effects on species that
are both federally and state listed.
California Native Plant Protection Act Review of mitigation agreement and mitigation plan for plants listed as
rare.
Lake/Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish
and Game Code Section 1601)
Change in natural state of river, stream or lake (includes road or land
construction across a natural streambed).
Chapter 3 Project Description
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 3-20
November 2016
Table 3-7 Potential Permits and Approvals
Agency/Department Permit/Approval Action Associated With or Required For
California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Encroachment Permit Consider issuance of permits to cross state highways.
California Coastal Commission (CCC) Coastal Development Permit Development within the Coastal Zone.
California State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) Section 106 Consultation, NHPA
Consult with Bureau of Land Management (BLM), project applicant,
appropriate land management agencies, and others regarding activities
potentially affecting cultural resources.
Local Agencies
County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health (DEH)
Hazardous Materials Business Plan Hazardous material exceeding federal threshold quantities.
Hazardous Materials Inventory Hazardous materials exceeding county threshold quantities.
County of San Diego Department of
Public Works Encroachment Permit Installation of pipelines in, under, or over any portion of county road
rights-of-way.
San Diego County, Sheriff’s Department Explosives Permit Consider issuance of a license to store flammable explosives.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(SDAPCD)
Authority to Construct Emissions from a stationary source.
Permit to Operate Equipment emitting pollutants from a stationary source.
San Diego County Water Authority
(SDCWA) Joint Use Permit Installation of pipelines in areas where SDCWA has prior rights.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4-1
November 2016
Chapter 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Sections 4.1 through 4.12 of Chapter 4 of this PEIR contain a discussion of the potential significant
environmental effects resulting from implementation of the OWD WFMP, including information related
to existing site conditions, analyses of the type and magnitude of individual and cumulative environmental
impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts.
Scope of the Environmental Impact Analysis
Implementation of the WFMP could result in potential significant impacts for the following environmental
topics:
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources
■ Cultural Resources
■ Energy
■ Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
■ Global Climate Change
■ Hydrology and Water Quality
■ Landform Alteration and Visual Quality
■ Land Use and Planning
■ Noise
■ Public Safety
■ Transportation/Traffic
Impacts to Agricultural Resources and Mineral Resources are considered to be “Effects Found Not to be
Significant,” according to Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines. Population and Housing, Public Services,
Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems were not analyzed in Chapter 4 of this PEIR because they are
not applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update. The rationale for these conclusions are given in Chapter 6 of
this PEIR.
Format of the Environmental Impact Analysis
The following subsections comprise each of the 12 environmental topic sections in Chapter 4 of this PEIR.
Environmental Setting
According to Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of the existing
physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of a project to provide the “baseline condition” against
which project-related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline condition is the physical condition
that exists when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The NOP for the OWD WFMP PEIR was
published on June 29, 2015. However, the CEQA Guidelines and applicable case law recognize that the
date for establishing an environmental baseline cannot be rigid. Physical environmental conditions may
vary over a range of time periods; thus, the use of environmental baselines that differ from the date of
the NOP is reasonable and appropriate when conducting the environmental analysis. The following
subsections rely on a variety of data to establish an applicable baseline.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4-2
November 2016
Regulatory Framework
This subsection provides a summary of regulations, plans, policies, and laws that are relevant to each
environmental topic at the federal, state, and local levels.
Impacts and Mitigation
This subsection describes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the
OWD WFMP. Based upon the standards of significance given in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines or as
modified by the OWD, this subsection provides a conclusion regarding the significance of environmental
impacts for each issue identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines that fall under one of the following
categories:
■ “Potentially Significant Impact”
■ “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated”
■ “Less Than Significant Impact”
For example, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies five environmental issues for the
environmental topic Air Quality. Detailed impact analyses and mitigation measures are discussed in
Section 4.1 of this PEIR for the first three issues that are determined to be potentially significant, which
address conflicts with the applicable air quality plan and direct and cumulative air quality violations. For
the fourth issue (exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations), Chapter 5
Section 6.1 of the PEIR (Effects Found Not to be Significant) will expand upon the conclusion of less than
significant impact. For the fifth issue, Section 4.1 of this PEIR will describe the specific design features to
be incorporated as mitigation for the potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of
sensitive receptors to objectionable odors. A Summary Box at the beginning of each issue subsection
provides the reader a convenient capsule of the issue statement, the significance of impact conclusion
(before and after mitigation), and the proposed mitigation measure(s).
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
This subsection lists the specific features that will be incorporated into the design of CIP projects and/or
the standard construction practices adopted by the OWD, both of which are intended to reduce the
severity of impacts identified in the Impact Analysis subsection described below. The OWD has fully
committed to undertaking these measures and, in fact, the standard construction practices are typically
incorporated into their project construction plans and specifications.
Standards of Significance
Standards of significance are criteria used to determine whether potential environmental effects are
significant. The standards of significance used in this analysis were primarily based upon Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines. This subsection defines the type, amount, and/or extent of impact that would be
considered a significant adverse change in the environment. The standards of significance for some
environmental topics, such as air quality, traffic and noise, are quantitative, while those for other topics,
such as landform alteration/visual quality, are qualitative. The standards of significance are intended to
assist the reader in understanding how and why an EIR reaches a conclusion that an impact is significant
or less than significant.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4-3
November 2016
Impact Analysis
The analysis of environmental impacts considers both the construction and operational aspects of the
near-term (year 2017 to year 2022) and long-term (year 2023 to ultimate end) projects associated with
implementation of the WFMP. As required by Section 15126.2(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, direct, indirect,
short-term, extended-term, on-site, and/or off-site impacts are addressed, as appropriate, for the
environmental issue being analyzed.
This PEIR utilizes the following terms to describe the level of significance of impacts identified during the
course of the environmental analysis:
■ Less than Significant. This term is used to refer to impacts resulting from implementation of the
WFMP that are not likely to exceed the defined standards of significance;
■ Potentially Significant. This term is used to refer to impacts resulting from implementation of the
WFMP that exceed the defined standards of significance before identification of project design
features/standard construction practices and mitigation/performance measures. A “significant
effect” is defined by Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as “a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the
project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or
aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant
effect on the environment [but] may be considered in determining whether the physical change
is significant.”
■ Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. This term is for impacts that are identified as
potentially significant, but where the level of impact is reduced to a level that does not exceed
the defined standards of significance after implementation of project design features/standard
construction practices and mitigation/performance measures.
■ Significant and Unavoidable. This term is used to refer to potentially significant impacts resulting
from implementation of the WFMP that cannot be eliminated or reduced to below standards of
significance through implementation of feasible project design features/standard construction
practices and mitigation/performance measures.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to “describe feasible measures which could
minimize significant adverse impacts.” The CEQA Guidelines define feasibility as capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into account economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations. This subsection lists the “mitigation measures” and/or
“performance measures” that could reduce the severity of impacts identified in the Impact Analysis
subsection. Mitigation measures are the specific environmental requirements to allow for construction of
the specific projects identified in the mitigation measure, consistent with the Findings of this PEIR. With
implementation of these measures, no additional CEQA documentation is required, unless changes occur
in the design of these projects that warrant additional environmental review pursuant to Sections 15162
through 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. Performance measures are the additional environmental studies,
surveys and/or CEQA documentation that will be required for the specific projects identified in the
performance measure, prior to future approvals and construction of these projects consistent with the
Findings of this PEIR.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4-4
November 2016
CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Applicable
Certain environmental issues from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were determined to be not
applicable to the WFMP or “No Impact.” This subsection provides a brief explanation of why the issue was
deemed not applicable and therefore not analyzed in this PEIR.
References
This subsection identifies sources relied upon for each environmental topic analyzed in Chapter 4 of this
PEIR.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-1
November 2016
4.1 Air Quality
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to air quality; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) related to these issues resulting from development of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP
Update; and the project design features (PDF), standard construction practices (SCP), and mitigation/
performance measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts.
4.1.1 Environmental Setting
4.1.1.1 Climatology
The climatic and meteorological conditions within a region influence the ambient air quality, and this
influence can vary throughout the year as conditions fluctuate. The OWD planning area is located within
the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The general climatic conditions of the OWD planning area vary greatly due
to its size and geographic range throughout San Diego County. Generally speaking, climatic trends within
the San Diego region correspond to proximity to the Pacific Ocean, and the San Diego Air Pollution Control
District (SDAPCD) defines climatic zones based on this premise. The OWD planning area falls within three
of the five climate zones defined by the SDAPCD, the Coastal Zone (5-15), the Transitional Zone (20-25),
and the Interior Zone (25-60) (SDAPCD 2008). The numbers associated with each of the climatic zones
denote approximate distances from the Pacific Ocean in units of miles.
The climate of the SDAB is dominated by a semi-permanent high pressure cell located over the Pacific
Ocean. This cell influences the direction of prevailing winds (westerly to northwesterly) and maintains
clear skies for much of the year. The combination of topography and climate influence air quality in the
SDAB and are constraints to efforts to reduce air pollution in the region. During the summer months, a
warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction
between the ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. This warm upper layer forms a cap
over the cool marine layer and inhibits pollutants in the marine layer from dispersing away from the
surface. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. The SDAB experiences more
days of sunlight than many other urban areas in the nation, and sunlight triggers the photochemical
reactions that produce ozone, a criteria pollutant as described in Section 4.1.1.2 (Existing Air Quality).
Climatic conditions within the San Diego region are characteristically Mediterranean along the coast, with
mild temperatures year round. Inland areas are both hotter in summer and colder in winter, with summer
temperatures often exceeding 90 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and winter temperatures occasionally dipping
to below freezing. Information from NOAA taken from Lindbergh Field (near the San Diego International
Airport) in the Coastal Zone demonstrates that between the years 1850 to 2008 the temperature within
San Diego remained fairly temperate at an overall average of 63F (NOAA 2015). The normal precipitation
in San Diego is 10.13 inches annually, occurring primarily from November through March.
4.1.1.2 Existing Air Quality
Existing, air quality laws and regulations divide air pollutants into two general categories: criteria air
pollutants and toxic air pollutants. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six common air pollutants. These
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-2
November 2016
commonly found air pollutants (also known as “criteria pollutants”) include particle pollution (often
referred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides,
and lead (EPA 2014).
Toxic air contaminants (TACs), also known as hazardous air pollutants, are those pollutants that are known
or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects,
or adverse environmental effects. The EPA is working with state, local, and tribal governments to reduce
air toxics releases of 188 pollutants to the environment. Examples of TACs include benzene, which is found
in gasoline; perchlorethlyene, which is emitted from some dry cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride,
which is used as a solvent and paint stripper by a number of industries. Examples of other listed air toxics
include dioxin, asbestos, toluene, and metals such as cadmium, mercury, chromium, and lead compounds.
Criteria Air Pollutants
There are currently six criteria air pollutants for which the EPA has set ambient air quality standards. These
pollutants are described below.
Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. It is not usually emitted directly into the air but at
ground-level, and is created by a chemical reaction between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline
vapors, and chemical solvents as well as natural sources emit NOX and VOC that help form ozone. Ground-
level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level ozone to
form in harmful concentrations in the air. As a result, it is known as a summertime air pollutant. Many
urban areas tend to have high levels of ground level ozone but even rural areas are also subject to
increased ozone levels because wind carries ozone and pollutants that form hundreds of miles away from
their original sources. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain,
coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-
level ozone also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may
permanently scar lung tissue (EPA 2014).
Carbon monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, produced by incomplete burning of carbon-
based fuels, including gasoline, oil, and wood. Carbon monoxide is also produced from incomplete
combustion of many natural and synthetic products. For example, cigarette smoke may contain carbon
monoxide. When carbon monoxide enters the body, it combines with chemicals in the blood and prevents
the blood from providing oxygen to cells, tissues, and organs. Because the body requires oxygen for
energy, high-level exposures to carbon monoxide can cause serious health effects.
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is produced from burning fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and coal. It is formed
directly as a product of combustion and in the atmosphere through the reaction of nitrogen oxide (NO)
with oxygen. As mentioned previously, nitrogen oxides may react with VOC to form ozone, which is a
major component of smog. Nitrogen oxides are also major components of acid rain. Nitrogen dioxide is a
respiratory irritant and may affect those with existing respiratory illness, including asthma.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-3
November 2016
Particulate matter
Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) includes dust, soot, and other tiny bits of solid materials that are
released into and move around in the air. Particulates are produced by many sources, including burning
of diesel fuels by trucks and buses, incineration of garbage, mixing and application of fertilizers and pesticides,
road construction, industrial processes such as steel making, mining operations, agricultural burning, and
operation of fireplaces and woodstoves. Particulate pollution can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation and
other health problems. Particulate matter is measured in microns, which are one millionth of a meter in length
(or one-thousandth of a millimeter). PM10 is small (respirable) particulate matter measuring 10 microns in
diameter; while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter.
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, reactive gas that is produced from the burning of sulfur-containing fuels
such as coal and oil, and by other industrial processes, such as production of paper and smelting of metals.
Sulfur dioxide is closely related to sulfuric acid and plays an important role in the production of acid rain. Sulfur
dioxide is a respiratory irritant that can cause narrowing of the airways leading to wheezing and shortness of
breath. Long-term exposure to sulfur dioxide can cause respiratory illness and aggravate existing
cardiovascular disease.
Other Regulated Air Pollutants
Volatile organic compounds are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in
atmospheric photochemical reactions. The major sources of VOCs in the SDAB are on-road motor vehicles
and solvent evaporation. Although health-based standards have not been established for VOCs, health
effects can occur from exposures to high concentrations because of interference with oxygen uptake. In
general, higher concentrations of VOCs are suspected to cause eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches;
loss of coordination; nausea; and damage to the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system (EPA 1999). It
should be noted that there are no California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for VOCs because
they are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because a reduction in VOC
emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone.
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a category of air pollutants that have been shown to have an impact on human health but are
not classified as criteria pollutants. Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons,
certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including construction activities;
area sources, such as architectural coatings for maintenance purposes, fuel combustion emissions from
landscape maintenance equipment, and energy use from space and water heating; stationary sources
such as diesel emergency generators and laboratories; and mobile sources. Adverse health effects of TACs
can be carcinogenic (cancer-causing), short-term (acute) non-carcinogenic, and long-term (chronic) non-
carcinogenic.
Diesel particulate matter (DPM) can be a TAC of concern during construction of a project due to use of
heavy trucks. DPM is a mixture of many exhaust particles and gases that is produced when an engine
burns diesel fuel and many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. Some short-term (acute)
effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation and exposure can cause coughs,
headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of ambient fugitive dust
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-4
November 2016
pollution as well, and numerous studies have linked elevated fugitive dust levels in the air to increased
hospital admission, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering
from respiratory problems (OEHHA 2001).
Lead
Air-borne sources of lead (Pb) include industrial sources and soil weathering of crustal soils that contain
lead. Lead can cause severe health effects including brain and kidney damage and learning disabilities. For
this reason, lead is listed as both a criteria air pollutant and as a toxic air contaminant.
Cancer Risk
Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability (chance) of developing cancer from exposure to a
carcinogen, typically expressed as the increased chances in one million. The significance of exposure to a
carcinogen is evaluated based on the increase in risk. The increased risk is determined by multiplying a
calculated dose with the cancer potency factor and then by one million to express risk in the common
term of the risk per million people.
Non-Cancer Risk
Non-cancer health risk of an inhaled TAC is measured by the hazard index, the ratio of the reported
concentration of an air toxic compound to an acceptable or “reference” exposure level (REL). For non-
inhalation pathways, hazard indices are calculated as the ratio of calculated doses to acceptable or
“reference” doses (RfDs). If the reported concentration or dose of a given chemical is less than its REL or
RfD, then the hazard index will be less than 1.0. If more than one chemical is considered, it is assumed
that multiple sub-threshold exposures could result in an adverse health effect. Thus, chemical-specific
hazard indices are summed. Typically, for a given set of chemicals, hazard indices are summed for each
organ system that each chemical can affect. For any organ system, a total hazard index exceeding 1.0
indicates a potential adverse health effect.
Existing OWD Planning Area
The entirety of the OWD planning area exists within the SDAB, which lies within primary jurisdiction of
the SDAPCD. The SDAPCD maintains and operates 10 ambient air monitoring stations throughout the
SDAB in order to measure ambient concentrations of relevant pollutants. The results are used to
determine if the ambient air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the
CAAQS, which are listed below in Table 4.1-1. Three of the ten monitoring stations are within proximity
to the OWD planning area, including the El Cajon, Chula Vista, and Otay Mesa stations.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The SDAPCD operates a network of 10 ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County that
measure ambient concentrations of air pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets
the NAAQS and the CAAQS. The nearest ambient monitoring station to the project area is the Otay Mesa-
Paseo International station, located to the west of the project area. The nearest station that measures
carbon monoxide is the El Cajon-Redwood Avenue station, located north of the project area. Table 4.1-1
presents a summary of the ambient pollutant concentrations monitored at the nearest monitoring
stations during the last three years available (2012-2014).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-5
November 2016
Table 4.1-1 Air Quality Monitoring Data
Pollutant Monitoring Station 2013 2014 2015
Carbon Monoxide (CO)(1)
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) El Cajon-Redwood Avenue 1.86 -- --
Days above state or federal standard (>9.0 ppm) 0 -- --
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Peak 1-hour concentration (ppm) Otay Mesa-Paseo International 0.091 0.087 --
Days above state 1-hour standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 --
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm)
Otay Mesa-Paseo International
0.073 0.061 --
Days above 1-hour state standard (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 --
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.063 0.054 --
Days above 8-hour state standard (>0.07 ppm) 0 0 --
Days above 8-hour federal standard (>0.075 ppm) 0 0 --
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm)
El Cajon-Redwood Avenue
0.001 -- --
Days above 24-hour state standard (>0.04 ppm) 0 -- --
Days above 24-hour federal standard (>0.14 ppm) 0 -- --
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)(1)
Peak 24-hour concentration (g/m3)
Otay Mesa-Paseo International
126 -- --
Days above state standard (>50 g/m3) 6 -- --
Days above federal standard (>150 g/m3) 0 -- --
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Peak 24-hour concentration (g/m3) Chula Vista
21.9 26.5 33.5
Days above federal standard (>35 g/m3) 0 0 0
ppm = parts per million, g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
(1) The most recent year the pollutant was monitored was 2012, which is shown under 2013 in this table.
Source: ARB 2016
As shown in Table 4.1-1, the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone concentrations did not exceed the state or federal
standards in 2012 through 2014. The federal 24-hour PM10 concentration did not exceed the federal
standard in the past three years; however, the state PM10 standard was violated six times in 2012.
Neither the state nor federal standards for carbon monoxide, NO2, SO2, or PM2.5 were exceeded at any
time during the years 2013 through 2015. The federal annual average NO2 standard has not been
exceeded since 1978 and the California 1-hour standard has not been exceeded since 1988 (SDAPCD
2007a). With one exception during October 2003, the SDAB has not violated the state or federal standards
for carbon monoxide since 1990 (SDAPCD 2007a).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-6
November 2016
4.1.2 Regulatory Framework
4.1.2.1 Federal
Clean Air Act
The CAA of 1970 and the Amendments of 1971 required the EPA to establish NAAQS with states retaining
the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants. These standards are
the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health
and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further
respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by
other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise.
The EPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in “attainment,” “non-attainment,” or
“unclassified” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If
an area is designated unclassified, it is because there is insufficient data to designate an area, or
designations have yet to be made. Table 4.1-2 lists the federal attainment status of the SDAB for the
criteria pollutants.
Table 4.1-2 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Status Federal Status
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Maintenance (Moderate)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Ozone (O3) (1-hour) Non-attainment No Federal standard
Ozone (O3) (8-hour) Non-attainment Non-attainment (Marginal)
Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Non-attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Non-attainment Attainment/Unclassified
Source: EPA 2016, ARB 2013
4.1.2.2 State
California Clean Air Act
The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are
at least as stringent as federal standards. The California Air Resources Board (ARB), a part of the
California EPA is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution
control programs within California, including setting the CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS are listed below
in Table 4.1-3.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-7
November 2016
Table 4.1-3 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards(1) Federal Standards(2)
Concentration(3) Primary(3,4) Secondary(3,5)
Ozone (O3) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) -- Same as Primary Standard 8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3)
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m --
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24 Hour -- 35 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
8 Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) None 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppm (100 μg/m3)6 Same as Primary Standard
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (470 mg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3)6 None
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) -- --
3 Hour -- -- 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)7
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3)7 --
Lead(8)
30 Day Average 1.5 μg/m3 -- --
Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 μg/m3
Same as Primary Standard Rolling 3-month
Average(9) -- 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility Reducing
Particles 8 Hour
Extinction coefficient of 0.23
per kilometer - visibility of 10
miles or more due to particles.
No Federal Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 μg/m3 No Federal Standards
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) No Federal Standards
Vinyl Chloride(8) 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) No Federal Standards
(1) California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and
particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or
exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the CCR.
(2) National standards (other than hour ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more
than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over
three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar
year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when
98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.
(3) Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based on a reference
temperature of 25C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature
of 25C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
(4) National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.
(5) National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of a pollutant.
(6) To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at
each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb). Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in
units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In
this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
(7) On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To
attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each
site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated
for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until
implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of ppb.
California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be
converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
(8) The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects
determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these
pollutants.
(9) The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a
quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated
nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008
standard are approved.
Source: ARB 2015.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-8
November 2016
California State Implementation Plan
The CAA (and its subsequent amendments) required each state to prepare an air quality control plan
referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest
emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with
jurisdiction over them. The California EPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they
conform to the requirements of the CAA, and achieve air quality goals when implemented. The ARB adopts
the California SIP. The SDAPCD has developed the SDAB input to the SIP, which is required under the
federal CAA for areas that are out of attainment of air quality standards. The SIP includes the APCD plans
and control measures for attaining the NAAQS for ozone. The SIP is updated on a triennial basis. The ARB
adopted its 2007 State Strategy for the California 2007 SIP on September 27, 2007. As part of the State
Strategy, the SDAPCD developed its “Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County” Plan
(SDAPCD 2007b), which provides plans for attaining and maintaining the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. This
plan accommodates emissions from all sources, including natural sources, through implementation of
control measures, where feasible, on stationary sources to attain the standards. Mobile sources are
regulated by the California EPA and the ARB, and the emissions and reduction strategies related to mobile
sources are considered in the SIP. The SIP does not address impacts from sources of PM10 or PM2.5. A
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for 1997 Ozone Standard in San Diego County was approved
by the California EPA in 2013.
Toxic Air Contaminant Regulations
California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807 Tanner Act) and the Air
Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588 Hot Spots Act). The Tanner Act sets
forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. The Hot Spots Act requires that existing
facilities that emit toxic substances above specified levels: (1) prepare a toxic emission inventory,
(2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant (i.e., 10 tons per year or on the applicable air
district's Hot Spots Risk Assessment list), (3) notify the public of significant risk levels, and (4) prepare and
implement risk reduction measures.
In September 2000, ARB approved the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel‐Fueled Engines and Vehicles (ARB 2000). The plan outlines a comprehensive and ambitious
program that includes the development of numerous control measures aimed at substantially reducing
emissions from new and existing on‐road vehicles (e.g., heavy‐duty trucks and buses), off‐road equipment
(e.g., graders, tractors, forklifts, sweepers, and boats), portable equipment (e.g., pumps), and stationary
engines (e.g., stand‐by power generators).
4.1.2.3 Local
San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy
The SDAPCD is the local agency responsible for the administration and enforcement of air quality
regulations for San Diego County, including the OWD planning area. The SDAPCD regulates most air
pollutant sources, except for motor vehicles, marine vessels, aircrafts, and agricultural equipment, which
are regulated by the ARB or the EPA. State and local government projects, as well as projects proposed by
the private sector, are subject to SDAPCD requirements if the sources are regulated by the SDAPCD.
Additionally, the SDAPCD, along with the ARB, maintains and operates ambient air quality monitoring
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-9
November 2016
stations at numerous locations throughout San Diego County. These stations are used to measure and
monitor criteria and toxic air pollutant levels in the ambient air.
The SDAPCD and the SANDAG are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for
attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB. The San Diego County
Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) was initially adopted in 1991, and is updated on a triennial basis. The
RAQS was updated in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and most recently in April 2009. The RAQS outlines the
SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for ozone. The
SDAPCD has also developed the air basin’s input to the SIP, which is required under the Federal Clean Air
Act for areas that are out of attainment of air quality standards.
The RAQS relies on information from ARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as
well as information regarding projected growth in the county, to project future emissions and then
determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls.
The ARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population
and vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the cities and by the county as part of the
development of the county’s General Plan. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent
with the growth anticipated by the general plans would be consistent with the RAQS. In the event that a
project would propose development which is less dense than anticipated within the general plan, the
project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. If a project proposes development that is greater
than that anticipated in the general plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might be in
conflict with the RAQS and SIP, and might have a potentially significant impact on air quality.
The SIP relies on the same information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and reduction
strategies that are included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin. The SIP also includes rules
and regulations that have been adopted by the SDAPCD to control emissions from stationary sources.
These SIP-approved rules may be used as a guideline to determine whether a project’s emissions would
have the potential to conflict with the SIP and thereby hinder attainment of the NAAQS for ozone.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rule 50 and 55, Fugitive Dust
Control
In addition to the RAQS and SIP, the SDAPCD adopted the “Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San
Diego County” report in December 2005 (SDAPCD 2005). As a result of the evaluation, SDAPCD proposed
measures for further evaluation to reduce particulate emissions from residential wood combustion and
from fugitive dust from construction sites and unpaved roads. The SDAPCD requires that construction
activities implement the measures listed in Rule 50 and Rule 55 to minimize visible and fugitive dust
emissions (SDAPCD 2009).
Other San Diego Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations
Rule 51 prohibits nuisances, including objectionable odors (SDAPCD 1969). Rule 67 establishes volatile
organic compounds content limits for architectural coatings (SDAPCD 2001). Rule 1200 applies to any new,
relocated, or modified emission unit which may increase emissions of one or more toxic air contaminant.
Additionally, APCD Rule 1210 implements the public notification and risk reduction requirements of the
State Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act, and requires facilities to reduce risks to acceptable levels within five
years.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-10
November 2016
4.1.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.1.3.1 Issue 1 – Consistency with Applicable Air Quality
Plan
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
There are no PDFs or SCPs identified to reduce potential impacts associated with consistency with
applicable air quality plans.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact is considered significant if implementation of the
2015 WFMP Update would result in a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the San Diego County
RAQS, applicable portions of the SIP, and/or any local air quality plans.
Impact Analysis
The most current air quality planning document for the SDAPCD and thus the applicable air quality plan
to the 2015 WFMP Update is the 2009 RAQS (SDAPCD 2009). As discussed in Section 4.1.2.3 (Local
Regulatory Framework), this plan was prepared by the SDAPCD for ARB as part of the SIP, to demonstrate
how the SDAB would either maintain or strive to attain the NAAQS. Being that the SDAB is classified as a
nonattainment area for state and federal ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 standards, the aforementioned plan
outlines specific actions (emission control measures) that the SDAPCD will take towards achieving
attainment of these pollutants. The California SIP would also be applicable to the OWD planning area.
California SIP documents are prepared by ARB to demonstrate how the entire state of California will
maintain or attain the NAAQS. These documents are based on a collection of information from each of
the local APCDs.
The 2009 RAQS was developed based on growth assumptions, land use, and other information from
SANDAG. Growth assumptions made within the 2015 WFMP Update to determine appropriate future
service requirements were also derived from SANDAG growth assumptions and land use information. As
such, the 2015 WFMP Update would be consistent with the applicable SDAPCD air quality management
plan and the California SIP, as these documents utilized the same growth assumptions. Implementation
of the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality
plan.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an
applicable air quality plan; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-11
November 2016
4.1.3.2 Issue 2 – Consistency with Air Quality Standards
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
In 2002, OWD developed a comprehensive WRMP that combined all previously existing master plans and
facility plans into one system wide plan outlining the CIP projects required to serve their customers. In
2009, OWD updated the WRMP. A PEIR (SCH #2008101127) was prepared for the 2009 WRMP project in
accordance with CEQA that addressed the potential effects of the environment from construction and
operation of the identified CIPs (OWD 2010b). As identified in the 2009 WRMP PEIR, implementation of
the WRMP includes PDFs and SCPs to reduce potential environmental effects on air quality and energy
usage from OWD projects. These PDFs and SCPs are identified by environmental topic in the PEIR prepared
for the WRMP. The following SCP is applicable to the proposed project:
Air-SCP-1 Prior to construction of CIP projects, the following measures shall be taken to reduce
fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5, and PM10). Measures shall be implemented during
construction, including but not limited to, the following actions:
i. During grading and site preparation activities, exposed soil areas shall be watered as
necessary (at least twice per day) to prevent dust emissions. During windy days or
when fugitive dust can be observed leaving construction sites, additional applications
of water shall be required. Under windy conditions where wind velocities are forecast
to exceed 25 miles per hour, all ground disturbing activities shall be halted until the
winds are forecast to be less than 25 miles per hour.
ii. Where visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads, the paved
roads shall be swept or washed down at the end of the day to avoid vehicles from
pulverizing the dirt into fine particles.
iii. Trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall allow for at least two feet of
freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of
the trailer). Alternatively, trucks transporting materials shall be covered.
Air-SCP-2 Prior to construction of CIP projects, the following measures shall be taken to reduce
potential emissions of ozone precursors (NOX and VOCs) associated with construction
equipment. Measures shall be implemented during construction, including but not
limited to the following action:
i. All construction equipment utilized for the construction of proposed CIP projects shall
be maintained, tuned, and operated in accordance with all relevant SDAPCD, ARB,
and EPA standards.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact is considered significant if implementation of the
2015 WFMP Update would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation including pollutant emissions for which the region is in federal or state
nonattainment.
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)
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-12
November 2016
screening levels for new or modified stationary sources (APCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3). If these screening
levels are exceeded, an AQIA must be performed. Although these screening levels do not generally apply
to mobile sources or general land development projects, for comparative purposes these levels may be
used to evaluate the increased emissions from these projects. For CEQA purposes, the screening level
thresholds can be used to demonstrate that a project’s total emissions would not result in a significant
impact to air quality. Because the AQIA screening thresholds do not include VOCs and PM2.5, the screening
level for these pollutants used in this analysis are from the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), which generally has stricter emissions thresholds than SDAPCD. The screening thresholds
listed in Table 4.1-4 below are used in this analysis to determine whether the Project has the potential to
violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Table 4.1-4 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Pollutant Thresholds
Pollutant Pounds Per Hour Pounds Per Day Tons Per Year
Carbon monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 25 250 40
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) -- 100 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) -- 55(1) 10.0(2)
Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 25 250 40
Lead (Pb) -- 3.2 0.6
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) -- 55(1,3) 13.7(4)
(1) Based on threshold from SCAQMD
(2) Converted from PM2.5 Pounds per Day threshold
(3) There are separate thresholds for construction and operation: 75 lb/day for construction and 55 lb/day
for operation
(4) Converted from VOC Pounds per Day threshold: 13.7 lbs/day for construction and 10.0 lbs/day for
operation
Source: SDAPCD 1998, SCAQMD 2015.
Impact Analysis
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would have the potential to violate air quality standards
through construction activities or during operation of the proposed CIP projects, as discussed below.
Construction Emissions
Construction of CIP projects proposed under the 2015 WFMP Update would result in temporary increases
in air pollutant emissions. These emissions would be generated in the form of fugitive dust emissions
(PM10 and PM2.5) and ozone precursor emissions (NOX, VOC). Operation of heavy equipment and vehicles
during the construction phases would generate exhaust emissions from fuel combustion. Fugitive dust
emissions would be generated from earth disturbance during site grading and building demolition, as well
as from construction vehicles operating on open fields or dirt roadways within or adjacent to CIP project
construction sites.
Equipment that would be associated with construction of the proposed CIP projects includes dozers,
rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. At this time, many of the CIP
projects under the 2015 WFMP Update are still in the design phase and, as such, information regarding
the number and type of construction equipment required and the duration of construction activities is
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-13
November 2016
still unknown. Therefore, it is unknown whether or not construction emissions for the CIP projects (either
individually or collectively) would exceed the screening thresholds established by the SDAPCD.
As discussed above in Section 4.1.2.1 (Federal Regulatory Framework), the SDAB is currently designated
as a nonattainment area for the state standard for PM10, PM2.5, 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, and the federal
8-hour standard for ozone. Implementation of Air-SCP-1 would require that construction of all proposed
CIP projects adhere to standard construction practices for controlling fugitive dust emissions. In addition,
all equipment utilized for construction of the proposed CIP projects would be required to implement Air-
SCP-2. This standard construction practice requires that all construction vehicles meet the requirements
of the relevant air quality agencies, the SDAPCD, ARB, and the EPA with regards to tuning, maintenance,
and operation of the vehicles. Although incorporation of these standard construction practices would
reduce potential pollutant emissions, compliance with the standard construction practices does not
ensure that emissions from combined construction activity would be less than the applicable SDAPCD
screening levels.
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update could potentially contribute to the existing regional violation
of state and federal air pollutant standards, resulting in a significant impact.
Operational Emissions
Operational impacts associated with the 2015 WFMP Update would be incremental emissions of air
pollutants resulting from two emission source categories: stationary and mobile sources. The following
describes these emissions associated with the 2015 WFMP Update.
Stationary Sources. Stationary sources of air pollutant emissions associated with the CIP projects include
fuel combustion emissions from diesel-powered emergency generators. Criteria air pollutants from these
sources include carbon monoxide, NOX, SOX, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5. Of the proposed CIP projects, the only
projects that may require such equipment would be pump stations. Pipeline projects, storage projects,
and groundwater wells, once constructed, would not require the use of emergency generators or any
other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment. None of the CIP projects would require space heating
or landscape equipment. The 2015 WRMP Update proposes construction of twelve new pump stations: two
within Phase II, six within Phase IIIA, and four within Phase IIIB. Diesel fuel for the generators would only be
consumed when the equipment is tested, approximately once per month, or in the event of an emergency.
Due to the minimal use of diesel fuel required for operation of the pump stations, stationary sources of air
pollutant emissions would be negligible.
Mobile Sources. Mobile sources of air pollutant emissions for the CIP projects would be primarily
associated with vehicular trips by employees. However, operation of CIP projects proposed under the
2015 WFMP Update would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The maintenance for
most of the CIP projects would require approximately one visit per day. Due to the minimal number of
vehicular trips associated with maintenance of the CIP projects, mobile sources of air pollutant emissions
would be negligible. Therefore, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation with regards to
mobile sources.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-14
November 2016
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of mitigation measure Air-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with violations of
air quality standards with regards to construction emissions to a less than significant level.
Air-1 An air quality technical study shall be prepared for each CIP once the project reaches the
design stage to determine whether potential air pollutant emissions associated with
construction activities are less than the screening thresholds established by the SDAPCD. The
air quality technical study shall include an air pollutant emissions inventory for the CIP under
design, as well as emissions for all other designed CIPs that would undertake construction
within the same timeframe. All recommendations and measures identified in the air quality
technical study to ensure that air pollutant emissions remain within established thresholds
shall be incorporated by the Otay Water District prior to any groundbreaking activities
associated with the project.
4.1.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
OWD is not listed within the 2007 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Report for San Diego County as a
company or organization considered capable of posing possible health risks to the community of San
Diego with regards to TACs. Therefore, the only potential air emissions that could pose a threat to
sensitive receptors as a result of implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would be carbon monoxide.
Intersections for which there are severe traffic congestion issues can have potential risks associated with
carbon monoxide “hotspots,” defined as areas where high concentrations of carbon monoxide result from
idling vehicles. Traffic and the resulting issue of traffic congestion were found to have no significant
impacts with regards to implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update (refer to Chapter 4.12, Traffic). The
2015 WFMP Update would not have a potential to form carbon monoxide “hotspots” and would not
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, no impact would occur and
no further evaluation is necessary.
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
The 2015 WFMP Update would potentially generate chemicals such as diesel exhaust, which have the
potential to generate objectionable odors. However, due to the dispersed nature of the proposed CIP
projects, such odors would not be expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, no impact
would occur and no further evaluation is necessary.
4.1.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions
from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. September.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-15
November 2016
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards –
Ozone, PM10, PM2.5, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Lead, Sulfur Dioxide, Sulfates,
Hydrogen Sulfide, Visibility Reducing Particulates. June.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Revised October 1, 2015.
Accessed April 27, 2016 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Data Statistics – Top 4 Measurements
and Days Above the Standard. Accessed April 27, 2016 at www.arb.ca.gov/adam
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2015. The San Diego Lindbergh Fld, California
(047740) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. January. Accessed May 7, 2015 at
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7740
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2001. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust fact
sheet. May 21. Accessed September 2015 at http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/pdf/diesel4-
02.pdf
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance
Thresholds. March.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 1969. SDAPCD Regulation IV, Rule 51. January 1.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) 1998. Rule 20.2 (d)(2), Table 20.2-1. Effective
December 1998. www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SD/CURHTML/R1501.HTM
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2001. SDAPCD Regulation IV, Rule 67 – Architectural
Coatings. December.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2005. Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San
Diego County. December.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2007a. Air Quality in San Diego, 2007 Annual Report.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2007b. Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San
Diego County. May.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2008. Climate and Smog Fact Sheet. July.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2009. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision for
San Diego County. April. Accessed at www.sdapcd.org/planning/plan.html
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2014. 2013 Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Report for
San Diego County. June 18.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. The Cost and Benefit of the Clean Air Act: 1990-2010,
Appendix D—Human Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Updated October 21, 2014. Accessed May 8, 2015 at http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas. April 22.
Accessed April 27, 2016 at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ca.html
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.1 Air Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.1-16
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-1
November 2016
4.2 Biological Resources
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to biological resources, wildlife movement corridors, and local policies protecting biological
resources; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) related to
these issues resulting from development of CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update; and the project design
features, standard construction practices, and mitigation/performance measures to reduce or avoid the
identified impacts. Refer to Section 4.9.3.1 (Land Use and Planning, Issue 1) of this PEIR for the evaluation
of potential conflicts with habitat conservation plans (HCPs) and natural communities’ conservation plans,
such as the Multiple Species Conservation Programs (MSCPs).
4.2.1 Environmental Setting
4.2.1.1 Research Methods
As listed below, information about biological resources within the planning area was obtained from a
search of sensitive species databases; a review of pertinent literature, prior environmental documents,
and aerial photographs; and site visits. No site-specific or focused plant or animal surveys were conducted.
Databases
■ Calflora (2016)
■ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2016a)
■ CaliforniaHerps.com (2016)
■ California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
(CNPS 2016)
■ CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2016b)
■ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG ) Regional Species (SANDAG 2016)
■ San GIS Vegetation (SANGIS 2016)
■ San Diego Management and Monitoring Program (2016)
■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2016)
Literature Review
■ County of San Diego MSCP (County 1997)
■ City of San Diego MSCP (City of San Diego 1997)
■ City of Chula Vista MSCP (Chula Vista 2003)
■ City of Chula Vista MSCP 2014 Annual Report (Chula Vista 2014)
■ Otay Water District Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Draft EIR/EIS (2015)
■ San Diego Municipal Code. Land Development Code. Biology Guidelines. (Amended) August 2009
(City of San Diego 2009)
Biological information obtained from these sources applies to the entire planning area, as opposed to
individual CIP sites. As such, the biological resources listed in the following sections have the potential to
occur within the planning area based on species siting or habitat type, but may not occur within individual
CIP sites.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-2
November 2016
4.2.1.2 Biological Resources
Vegetation Communities
The following vegetation communities occur within the planning area, as described below (Figure 4.2-1a
through 4.2-1e). Descriptions of each vegetation community were derived from the Preliminary
Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986), Terrestrial Vegetation
Communities in San Diego County Based on Holland’s descriptions (Oberbauer 1996), and Draft Vegetation
Communities of San Diego County Based on Holland’s descriptions (Oberbauer and Buegge 2008).
Foothill Woodlands
Coast live oak woodland is dominated by California live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with an open understory
of perennial grasslands, annuals, and herbaceous species. Species associated with this woodland include
poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), creeping snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis), San Diego sedge
(Carex spissa), California buckthorn (Rhamnus californica), California wild rose (Rosa californica), nodding
needlegrass (Stipa cernua), and common chickweed (Stellaria media).
Southern sycamore-alder riparian forest is a deciduous woodland that occurs in broad alluvial or rocky
drainages and floodplains and is dominated by western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and alders (Alnus
rhombifolia). This community also features scattered groves of willows and riparian understory. Other
characteristic species of this habitat include blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), poison oak
(Toxicodendron diversilobum), mistletoe (Phoradendron leucarpum), and desert wild grape (Vitis
girdiana).
Sycamore alluvial woodland is an open to moderately closed, winter-deciduous, broad-leafed riparian
woodland dominated by western sycamore. Understories are usually introduced grasses. Plant species
associated with this community include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), blue elderberry, annual bluegrass
(Poa annua), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia) and coast live oak.
Coastal Scrub and Chaparral
Chamise chaparral is a low-growing community dominated by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) with
limited shrub diversity and arid understory conditions. This community occurs around Mount San Miguel.
Species associated with this community include hairy yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), broom
snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), hairyleaf redberry (Rhamnus pilosa), Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera),
and mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor).
Coastal sage chaparral scrub contains species representative of both sage scrub and chaparral, dominated
by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), black sage (Salvia mellifera), chamise, and mission
manzanita. Canopy height tends to be low to moderate (3-5 feet tall), and relatively open, resembling
sage scrub.
Diegan coastal sage scrub is commonly characterized by drought-adapted subshrubs, dominated by
California sagebrush, California buckwheat, black sage, and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). This
community provides habitat for several sensitive species, including the coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica).
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoirLakeMurray
P2584
P2437
P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
TYPE
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
Category
Marsh and Wetland Communities
Disturbed or Developed Areas
Forest
Grasslands and Other Herb Communities
Riparian Communities
Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Communities
Woodland
Vegetation Communities
Figure 4.2-1
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-1 Vegetation Coversheet.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
")
")
")
")
")
")
HILLSDALESYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"_$
P2412
P2411
P2256
P2248
P2202
P2500
P20
5
8
P2586
P2156
P2
0
5
6P2188
P25
0
0
P2
0
5
3
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
Category
Marsh and Wetland Communities
Disturbed or Developed Areas
Forest
Grasslands and Other Herb Communities
Riparian Communities
Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Communities
Woodland
Vegetation Communities - Hillsdale System
Figure 4.2-1a
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-1 Vegetation Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
!(
!(
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
LA PRESASYSTEM
!"_$
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2431
P2233
P2391
P2393
P2511
P2585
P2407
P21
9
6
P2
5
1
6
P2
1
9
5
P2
5
1
1
P2148
P2
5
1
1
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
Category
Marsh and Wetland Communities
Disturbed or Developed Areas
Forest
Grasslands and Other Herb Communities
Riparian Communities
Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Communities
Woodland
Vegetation Communities - La Presa System
Figure 4.2-1b
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-1 Vegetation Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
")
!(
")
")
")
")
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
AË
AË
Upper Otay Reservoir
P2412
P2037
P2002
P2576
P2142
P2174
P2411
P2575
P2040
P2256
P2233
P2517
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2196
P2
1
9
8
P25
8
8
P2586
P2576
P2040
P2197
P2
5
8
7
P2
1
3
8
P2
2
0
4 P2171
P2
1
9
0
P2156
P20
5
6
P2135
P2188
P2137
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P2203
P259
1
P2
0
5
3
P243
5
P2033
P2058
P24
3
0
P2181
R
2
1
2
8
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
Category
Marsh and Wetland Communities
Disturbed or Developed Areas
Forest
Grasslands and Other Herb Communities
Riparian Communities
Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Communities
Woodland
Vegetation Communities - Regulatory System
Figure 4.2-1c
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-1 Vegetation Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
#0 ")
")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2437 P2577
P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2228
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2407
P2235
P219
6
P2589
P2590
P2
1
9
8
P2150
P237
4
P2580
P2598
P2056
P2586
P2576
P2197
P
2
1
0
4
P2
5
8
7
P2
1
3
8
P
2
2
0
4
P2600
P2171
P25
1
6
P2107
P2
4
0
2
P
2
5
8
2
P2116
P
2
3
9
8
P240
4
P2596
P2188
P2137
P2400
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P258
3
P2203
P2
4
0
3
P2148
P21
2
2
P213
5
P25
9
1
P2
5
1
1
P2
0
5
3
P252
8
P243
5
P
2
4
5
1
P2058
P243
0
P21
8
1
P2511
R
2
0
8
3
R2085
R2037
R2043
R
2
0
8
5
R2126 R2133
R2079
R2042R2082
R2038
R2132
R2080
R2134
R2
1
3
5
R
2
1
2
8
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of InfluenceCategory
Marsh and Wetland Communities
Disturbed or Developed Areas
Forest
Grasslands and Other Herb Communities
Riparian Communities
Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Communities
Woodland
Vegetation Communities - Central Area System
Figure 4.2-1d
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-1d Vegetation.mxd
I 0 0.7 1.40.35
Miles
1 in = 1.5 milesPotable Water Pipelines
#0
#0
P2603
P2602P2599
P2580
P2598
P
2
1
0
4
P2554 P2597
P2107
P2
4
0
2
P
2
5
8
2
P2116
P
2
3
9
8
P240
4
P2596
P210
6
P2581
P258
3
P240
3
P2590
P2405
P2554
R
2
0
8
3
R2136
R2137
R2085
R2
0
3
7
R2043
R
2
0
8
5
R2126
R2133
R2042
R2038
R2082
R2132
R2134
R2080 R21
3
5
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 milesRecycled Water Pipelines
See detail for Recycled Water Pipelines
Recycled Water Pipeline Detail
")
!(
")
$1
OTAY MESASYSTEM
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
P2579
P2228
P2392
P2482
P2603
P2589
P2602
P2590
P2580
P2106
P2
3
7
4
P2
5
8
2
P2600
P2583
P21
2
2
P
2
4
5
1
P2
4
5
1
R2136
R2043
R2133
R2042
R2134
R2
1
3
5
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
Pipeline
OWD Jurisdiction
Area of Influence
Category
Marsh and Wetland Communities
Disturbed or Developed Areas
Forest
Grasslands and Other Herb Communities
Riparian Communities
Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Communities
Woodland
Vegetation Communities - Otay Mesa System
Figure 4.2-1e
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-1 Vegetation Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-9
November 2016
Maritime succulent scrub is a low-lying, relatively open scrub dominated by cacti and succulents. Maritime
succulent scrub occurs in the Otay Mesa area. Species found within this community include San Diego
barrelcactus (Ferocactus viridescens), California boxthorn (Lycium californicum), strawberry cactus
(Mammillaria dioica), coastal pricklypear (Opuntia littoralis), chaparral pricklypear (Opuntia oricola),
coastal cholla (Cylindropuntia prolifera), jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis), California sagebrush, lemonade
sumac (Rhus integrifolia), and cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera).
Southern mixed chaparral is composed of broad-leaved shrubs which are typically deep rooted. Shrubs
are generally tall (between 10 and 20 feet) and occur on dry, rocky, often steep slopes with little soil. In
drier situations the understory may be dominated by a limited number of species; in shaded and more
mesic conditions the understory can be varied with species of ferns, subshrubs, herbaceous perennials,
bulbs, and annuals. Characteristic species of this community are Eastwood’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp. glandulosa), woolyleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus tomentosus), smooth mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus minutiflorus), chamise, hollyleaf redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia), sugar sumac (Rhus ovata), and
fuchsiaflower gooseberry (Ribes speciosum).
Forest
Southern interior cypress forest is a dense forest occurring at elevations between 500 and 3,600 feet
AMSL, dominated by Tecate cypress (Cupressus forbesii), Cuyamaca cypress (C. arizonica var.
stephensonii), or Piute cypress (C. nevadensis). The understory can consist of chaparral and scrub species
including chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), Otay manzanita (Arctostaphylos otayensis), California
buckwheat, toyon, Otay Mountain ceanothus (Ceanothus otayensis), chaparral pea (Pickeringia montana),
and southern mountain misery (Chamaebatia australis). This forest can also occur as isolated groves
within chaparral communities.
Grasslands
Native grasslands are found on clay substrates dominated by nodding needlegrass (Stipa cernua) and
purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra). This vegetation type is scattered throughout foothills in the planning
area. Species associated with this community include wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut grass (Bromus
diandrus), foxtail brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), and summer
mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).
Non-native grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses, primarily Eurasian grasses, often
associated with slender oat (Avena barbata), red brome, soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut grass,
shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), rat-tail fescue (Vulpia myuros), and common Mediterranean grass
(Schismus barbatus). This association is usually found within deep, fine-textured, clay soils.
Riparian
Mule fat scrub is a riparian scrub community dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) and
interspersed with shrubby willows (Salix spp.). This habitat occurs along intermittent stream channels with
a fairly coarse substrate and moderate water table depth. Species associated with this community include
arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (Salix laevigata), narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), Hooker’s
evening primrose (Oenothera elata), and hummingbird trumpet (California fushia) (Epilobium canum).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-10
November 2016
Southern coast live oak riparian forest typically contains dense evergreen riparian woodlands dominated
by coast live oak. Associated species include California wildrose (Rosa californica), Douglas’ sagewort
(Artemisia douglasiana), mule fat, and stinging nettle (Urtica holosericea).
Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest contains tall, broad-leafed species, which are predominantly
Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and several willow species. This vegetation community is usually
found along streams and rivers. Species associated with this community include black willow (Salix
goodingii), narrowleaf willow, arroyo willow, mule fat, western sycamore, hoary nettle (Urtica dioca), and
blue elderberry.
Southern willow scrub consists of dense, broadleaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by
arroyo willow. This habitat occurs on loose, sandy, or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream
channels during flood flows.
Marsh and Wetland Communities
Coastal freshwater marsh occurs along the edges of ponds, creeks, and riverbeds. This vegetation
community features saturated soils, standing water, and remains wet throughout most of the year.
Species associated with coastal freshwater marsh are broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), southern cattail
(Typha domingensis), California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), chairmaker’s bulrush
(Schoenoplectus americanus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and spikerush (Eleocharis
montevidensis).
San Diego Mesa claypan vernal pools have basins sealed by a thick veneer of clay. They occur on marine
terraces and have finer textured soils than hardpan pools. They are often associated with chamise
chaparral. Characteristic species found near these vernal pools include toothed calicoflower (Downingia
cuspidata), shortseed waterwort (Elatine brachysperma), and Orcutt’s quillwort (Isoetes orcuttii).
Disturbed and Developed
Disturbed
The planning area includes disturbed areas primarily in the southern and western portions. Disturbed land
includes areas in which there is sparse vegetative cover and where there is evidence of soil surface
disturbance and compaction from previous human activity and/or the presence of building foundations
and debris. Vegetation on disturbed land (if present) has a high predominance of non-native and/or weedy
species that are indicators of surface disturbance and soil compaction, such as Russian thistle (Salsola
tragus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), and sow-thistle
(Sonchus oleraceus). Disturbed habitat is not considered sensitive, and no mitigation is required for
impacts.
Developed Areas
The planning area includes several developed, urbanized areas primarily in the southern and western
portions, containing structures, roads and infrastructure facilities.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-11
November 2016
MSCP Open Space Reserves
The planning area contains portions of the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista
MSCPs and the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (Figure 4.2-2 and Figure B-4 in Appendix B). An MSCP
is a long-term regional conservation plan designed to establish a connected preserve system that ensures
the long-term survival of sensitive plant and animal species and protects the native vegetation found
throughout San Diego County, and is discussed further in Section 4.2.2.3 below.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Development within San Diego County has reduced the total available open space for wildlife populations,
and in some instances, created isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. Wildlife movement corridors are
areas of wildlife habitat that connect larger areas of habitat which are otherwise separated by rugged
terrain, changes in vegetation, or urban development. This allows for an exchange of individuals between
wildlife populations, which increases the genetic viability of otherwise isolated populations. Wildlife
corridors are especially important for species with large habitat ranges or seasonal migrations.
The County of San Diego MSCP has identified 16 core biological resource areas and associated wildlife
movement corridors, totaling approximately 203,000 acres of habitat within the San Diego region. Three
habitat linkages within the planning area (Figure 4.2-3) include the area (1) along Sweetwater River
between San Miguel Mountain and McGinty Mountain; (2) between Otay Mountain and Jamul Mountains
to Sycuan Peak; and (3) between San Miguel Mountain and Rancho del Rey.
Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
Federal waters of the U.S. are those areas regulated by Section 404 of the CWA, which gives the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and USACE regulatory and permitting authority. Waters of the U.S.
include the following: (1) waters used for commerce and subject to tides; (2) interstate waters and
wetlands; (3) “other waters” such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of
waters; (5) tributaries of waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. “Waters of the
State” are regulated by the RWQCB and the CDFW. Waters of the State are defined under Section 401 of
the CWA as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the
state.” RWQCB jurisdiction is considered congruent with that of USACE jurisdiction.
Due to the programmatic level of analysis contained in this PEIR, a formal study to delineate wetlands
within the planning area was not conducted. However, both USACE and CDFW jurisdictional wetlands
occur within the planning area boundaries (Figure B-1 in Appendix B), according to the USFWS National
Wetland Inventory database (USFWS 2016).
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U S A
M E X I C O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD Jurisdiction
Area of InfluenceCity of San Diego Multi-Habitat Preservation AreaMSCP (San Diego County)Conserved (Subject to Agreement with Wildlife Agencies)Hardline PreservePre-Approved Mitigation AreaTake Authorized Area
MSCP Open Space ReservesFigure 4.2-2
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-2 MSCP Open Spaces.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U S A
M E X I C O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceBiological Core AreaBiological Linkage
MSCP Wildlife CorridorsFigure 4.2-3
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-3 MSCP Wildlife Corridors.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-14
November 2016
4.2.1.3 Special-Status Biological Resources
The following section addresses special-status biological resources which have the potential to occur
within the planning area. For the purposes of this PEIR, “special status” species include plant and animal
species that have been recognized by either federal or state resource management agencies, conservation
organizations, or MSCP documents as having special management needs due to limited distribution,
limited numbers, or significant population declines associated with natural or manmade causes. Special-
status species include those designated as endangered, threatened, rare, protected, sensitive, or species
of special concern according to the USFWS, CDFW, or applicable regional plans, policies, or regulations.
In general, the principal reason an individual taxon (species, subspecies, or variety) is given special status
recognition is the documented or perceived decline or limitation of its population size or geographical
extent and/or distribution, resulting in most cases from habitat loss. Special-status biological resources
also include vegetation types and habitats that are either unique, of relatively limited distribution in the
region, or of particularly high wildlife value. These resources have been defined by federal, state, and local
government conservation programs.
Sensitive biological resources are defined as the following: (1) vegetation communities that are unique,
of relatively limited distribution, or of particular values to wildlife; and (2) species that have been given
special recognition by federal or state agencies, or are included in the MSCPs due to limited, declining, or
threatened populations.
Sensitivity Designations
Federal listing of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants is administered by the USFWS. The
USFWS also recognizes species of special concern that are candidates for listing. Before a plant or animal
species can receive protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), it must first be placed
on the federal list. The program follows a strict legal process to determine whether to list a species. An
“endangered” species is defined as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. A “threatened” species is one that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future. The USFWS also maintains a list of plants and animals native to the United States that are species
of special concern for possible addition to the federal list but that are not currently regulated.
The CDFW implements the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which is a program that is similar in
structure to, but different in detail from, the USFWS program implementing the FESA. The CDFW
maintains a list of designated endangered, threatened, and rare plant and animal species. Listed species
are either designated under the Native Plant Protection Act or designated by the Fish and Game
Commission. In addition to recognizing three levels of endangerment, the CDFG affords interim protection
to candidate species while they are being reviewed by the Fish and Game Commission. The CDFW also
maintains a list of Species of Special Concern (SSC), most of which are species whose breeding populations
in California may face local extinction. Although these species have no legal status, the CDFW
recommends their consideration in order to protect declining populations and avoid the need to list them
as endangered in the future. The CESA also protects plant species, which the FESA does not.
Under the provisions of Section 15380(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency, in making a
determination of significance, must treat rare non-listed plant and animal species as equivalent to listed
species if such species satisfy the minimum biological criteria for listing. In general, the CDFW considers
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-15
November 2016
species on the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, or 2 lists on the CNPS Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2016) as qualifying for consideration under this CEQA
provision. Species with a CNPS CRPR 3 or 4 may, but generally do not, qualify for protection under this
provision. Species with a CNPS CRPR 1A are “presumed extinct in California.” Species on List 1B are “rare
or endangered in California and elsewhere.” Species with a CNPS CRPR 2 are “rare or endangered in
California and are more common elsewhere.” Species with a CNPS CRPR 3 or 4 are those which require
more information to determine status and plants of limited distribution, respectively.
The primary information source on the distribution of special-status species in California is the CNDDB
inventory, which is maintained by the Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch of the CDFW. The CNDDB
inventory provides the most comprehensive state-wide information on the location and distribution of
special-status species and sensitive natural communities. Occurrence data are obtained from a variety of
scientific, academic, and professional organizations; private consulting firms; and knowledgeable
individuals; and is entered into the inventory as expeditiously as possible. The occurrence of a species of
concern in a particular region is an indication that an additional population may occur at another location
if habitat conditions are suitable. However, the absence of an occurrence in a particular location does not
necessarily mean that special-status species are absent from the area in question, only that no data has
been entered into the CNDDB inventory.
Sensitive Vegetation Communities
The following vegetation communities (described in Section 4.2.1.3 above) within the planning area are
considered to be sensitive by resource agencies:
■ Diegan coastal sage scrub
■ Coast live oak woodland
■ Southern sycamore-alder riparian woodland
■ Sycamore alluvial woodland
■ Gabbroic chaparral (including chamise chaparral and mixed chaparral)
■ Maritime succulent scrub
■ Southern interior cypress forest
■ Native grassland
■ Mule fat scrub
■ Southern coast live oak riparian forest
■ Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest
■ Southern willow scrub
■ Coastal freshwater marsh
■ San Diego mesa claypan vernal pool
■ Non-native grassland
Special Status Plants
Table 4.2-1 lists the federally and state- listed plant species that area known to occur in the planning area.
Table 4.2-2, and Figure B-2 present the known occurrences of the listed species. The complete list of the
77 special-status plant species that potentially occur within the planning area are included in Appendix B.
Nomenclature of these species conforms to Jepson et al (2012). Habitat requirements were derived from
the following online databases CNPS rare species online inventory (CNPS 2016), Calflora (2016), USFWS
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-16
November 2016
(2016) and CDFW (2016). Most of the special-status plant species within the planning area are CNPR List
1B or 2 species, none are on List 3, and eight are on List 4.
The service area figures located in Appendix B present CNDDB and SANGIS data for federally listed species
documented in the planning area (CDFW 2016b, SANGIS 2016). Colored polygons on the figures can
represent one individual siting of a species or a group of individuals. The size and shape of the colored
polygon are determined by the life history and habitat requirements of the species, as well as the degree
of certainty associated with the siting. Bird data including least Bell’s vireo and coastal California
gnatcatcher polygons include a buffer around individual species observations. Many of the plant species
polygons included more than one individual.
Table 4.2-1 State and Federally Listed Plant Species within the OWD Planning Area
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Notes
Mexican flannelbush Fremontodendron mexicanum E/-/1B In the U.S., only occurs in southern San Diego County.
San Diego ambrosia Ambrosia pumila E/-/1B
In the U.S., occurs in San Diego and Riverside counties.
Occurs in the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge in the
planning area.
Otay tarplant Deinandra conjugens T (E)/-/1B2
E/-/1B In the U.S., only occurs in southern San Diego County.
San Diego thorn-mint Acanthomintha ilicifolia T/E/1B In the U.S., only occurs in San Diego County.
Spreading navarretia Navarretia fossalis T/-/1B
Occurs in vernal pools in southern California. In the
planning area, it occurs in vernal pools in the Otay
Service area.
Dehesa nolina Nolina interrata -/E/1B In the U.S., only occurs in southern San Diego County.
1Federal/State/CNPS: E=endangered, T=threatened, List 1B are “rare or endangered in California and elsewhere.”
2USFWS listed Otay tarplant as threatened in 1998, and CDFG listed the species as endangered in 1979
Sources: Calflora 2016, CDFW 2016b, CNPS 2016, OWD 2016, SANGIS 2016, SDNHM 2016, USFWS 2016
Table 4.2-2 State and Federally Listed Plant Species Known Occurrences within the OWD
Planning Area
Species
Known Occurrences
Hillsdale La Presa Regulatory Central Otay
Mexican flannelbush X
Otay tarplant X X X X
San Diego ambrosia X
San Diego thorn-mint X
Spreading navarretia X X
Dehesa nolina X X
Sources: Calflora 2016, CDFW 2016b, CNPS 2016, OWD 2016, SANGIS 2016, SDNHM 2016, USFWS 2016
Special Status Animals
Table 4.2-3 lists the eight federally listed or candidate animal species likely to occur in the planning area.
Table 4.2-4 presents the known occurrences of the listed species. The complete list of the 51 special-status
animal species that potentially occur within the planning area are included in Appendix B. Of these species
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-17
November 2016
twenty-five (25) are birds, twelve (12) are mammals, eight (8) are reptiles, two (2) are amphibians, and
five (5) are invertebrates, including crustaceans and insects.
Nomenclature of these species conforms to CDFW (2016c), American Ornithological Union (AOU 2016,
Auk 2015) for birds; California Herps (2016) and Stebbins (2003) for reptiles and amphibians; and The
Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico (Museum of Texas Tech University 2003)
for mammals.
Table 4.2-3 State and Federally Listed Animal Species within the OWD Planning Area
Common Name Scientific Name Status(1) Notes
Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus E/-/SSC Occurs in suitable stream and adjacent upland habitat
in the planning area.
Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica T/-/ Occurs in Diegan coastal sage scrub throughout the
planning area.
Hermes copper butterfly Lycaena hermes C/
Occurs in the planning area near its host plant holly-
leaf redberry (Rhamnus crocea) in coastal sage scrub
and chaparral vegetation.
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus E/E/ Occurs in riparian habitat in the planning area.
Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha
quino E/-/
Occurs in suitable coastal sage scrub and grassland
habitat in the planning area. Host plant is dotseed
plantain (Plantago erecta).
Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus
woottonii E/-/SSC Occurs in vernal pools in the southern portion of the
planning area.
San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta
sandiegoensis E/-/SSC Occurs in vernal pools in the planning area.
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii
extimus E/E
Suitable riparian habitat occurs within the planning
area but this species is not currently known to occur in
the planning area.
(1) Federal/State/CDFW: E=endangered, T=threatened, C=Candidate, SSC=Species of Special Concern
Table 4.2-4 Listed Animal Species within the OWD Planning Area
Species
Known Occurrences
Hillsdale La Presa Regulatory Central Otay
Arroyo toad X X X X
Coastal California gnatcatcher X X X X X
Hermes copper butterfly X X X X X
Least Bell’s vireo X X X X X
Quino checkerspot butterfly X X X X X
Riverside fairy shrimp X
San Diego fairy shrimp X X X
Sources: CDFW 2016b, OWD 2016, SANGIS 2016, USFWS 2016
Migratory Birds
Native avian species are protected under the conventions implemented by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3503, 3503.5, and/or 3513.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-18
November 2016
Critical Habitat
USFWS-designated critical habitat is defined as an area occupied by a species listed as threatened or
endangered within which are found physical or geographical features essential to the conservation of the
species, or an area not currently occupied by the species but is essential for the recovery of the species.
Critical habitat has been designated for seven animals and five plants within the planning area. These
critical habitat areas are shown in Figure B-3 (Appendix B), and presented in Table 4.2-5.
Table 4.2-5 Critical Habitat within the OWD Planning Area
Species
Critical Habitat Locations
Other Hillsdale La Presa Regulatory Central Otay
Plants
Mexican flannelbush X Village 13
Otay tarplant X X
San Diego ambrosia X
San Diego thorn-mint X
Spreading navarretia X X
Animals
Arroyo toad X X
Coastal California gnatcatcher X X X Village 13
Least Bell’s vireo X X Village 13
Quino checkerspot butterfly X X
Riverside fairy shrimp X
San Diego fairy shrimp X
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Sources: OWD 2016, SANGIS 2016, USFWS 2016
4.2.2 Regulatory Framework
4.2.2.1 Federal
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the CWA (33 United States Code (USC) 1344) requires that a permit be obtained from
USACE prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any “waters of the U.S.,” including wetlands.
Waters of the U.S. are broadly defined in the UCACE regulations (33 CFR 328) to include navigable
waterways, their tributaries, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Wetlands are defined as, “Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that normally do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” Such permits often
require mitigation to offset losses of these habitat types. Wetlands that are not specifically exempt from
Section 404 regulations (such as drainage channels excavated on dry land) are considered to be
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-19
November 2016
“jurisdictional wetlands.” USACE is required to consult with the EPA, USFWS, CDFW, SWRCB, and the
various RWQCBs throughout the state in carrying out its discretionary authority under Section 404.
Section 401 of the CWA
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (33 USC 1341), or waiver thereof, is required from the RWQCB
before a Section 404 permit becomes valid. The RWQCB will review the project for consistency with Waste
Discharge Requirements under the state land disposal regulations (Subchapter 15). In reviewing the
project, the RWQCB will also consider impacts to waters of the U.S., in addition to filling of wetlands, in
accordance with the state wetland policy. Usually, mitigation is required (if not already a condition of the
404 permit) in the form of replacement or restoration of adversely impacted waters of the U.S.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
The MBTA of 1918 (16 USC 703-712711) implements an international treaty for the conservation and
management of bird species that may migrate through more than one country. It is enforced in the United
States by the USFWS, and makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory
bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed
by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of
reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may be considered a “take” and is
potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. The term “take” is defined by the FESA to include
the concept of “harm,” which agency regulations define to include death or injury that results from
modification or destruction of a species habitat (50 CFR Section 17.3). Migratory birds include geese,
ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many other species. A final revised list of birds protected by the
MBTA was published in November 2013 (USFWS 2013).
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Enacted in 1940, this Act (16 USC 668-668d) prohibits the take, transport, sale, barter, trade, import,
export, and possession of bald eagles, making it illegal for anyone to collect bald eagles and eagle parts,
nests, or eggs without authorization from the Secretary of the Interior. The Act was amended in 1962 to
extend the prohibitions to the golden eagle.
Federal ESA of 1973
The United States Congress passed the FESA (16 USC 1531-1544) in 1973 to provide a means for
conserving the ecosystems that endangered and threatened species require in order to prevent species
extinctions. The FESA has four major components: the Section 4 provisions for listing species and
designating critical habitat; the Section 7 requirement for federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with
the Service, that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species or result in
the modification or destruction of critical habitat; the Section 9 prohibition against “taking” listed species;
and the Section 10 provisions for permitting the incidental take of listed species.
Section 9 of the FESA
Section 9 of the FESA prohibits any person from “taking” an endangered animal species. Regulations
promulgated by USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration make the “take”
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-20
November 2016
prohibition generally applicable to threatened animal species as well (50 CFR Section 17.71). Section 9
thus prohibits the clearing of habitat that results in death or injury to members of a protected species.
An authorization to incidentally take listed species can be obtained either through a Section 7 Biological
Opinion or through a Section 10 take permit issued pursuant to a HCP. In the context of Section 7,
incidental take is authorized through an incidental take statement (ITS) that is issued as part of a Biological
Opinion. Measures required to conform to the ITS are contained in “reasonable and prudent measures,”
as are the terms and conditions necessary to implement those measures. In the context of Section 10,
incidental take is authorized through an incidental take permit (ITP) issued pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B).
Measures contained in the ITP reflect the measures set out in an HCP developed by the applicant in
conjunction with the USFWS.
Section 7 of the FESA
Section 7 of the FESA provides that each federal agency must ensure, in consultation with the Secretary
of Interior or Commerce, that any actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency are “not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction
or adverse modification of lands determined to be critical habitat” (16 USC Section 1536(a)(2)). The term
“agency action” is broadly defined in a manner that includes nearly all actions taken by federal agencies
as well as actions by private parties which require federal agency permits or approval (50 CFR Section
402.02). The consultation requirement of Section 7 is triggered upon a determination that a proposed
action “may affect” a listed species or designated critical habitat (50 CFR Section 402.14(a)). If the
proposed action is a “major construction” activity, the federal agency proposing the action must prepare
a biological assessment to include with its request for the initiation of Section 7 consultation.
Included in the Biological Opinion is an ITS that authorizes a specified level of take anticipated to result
from the proposed action. The ITS contains “reasonable and prudent measures” that are designed to
minimize the level of incidental take and that must be implemented as a condition of the take
authorization (50 CFR Section 402.14(i)(5)).
The issuance of a Biological Opinion concludes formal consultation, but consultation can be reinitiated if
the amount or extent of incidental take authorized is exceeded, the action changes, new information
reveals effects of the action not previously considered, or a new species is listed or critical habitat is
designated (50 CFR Section 402.16).
Section 10 of the FESA
Under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA, the USFWS may permit the incidental take of listed species that
may occur as a result of an otherwise lawful activity. To obtain a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, an applicant
must prepare an HCP that meets the following five criteria: (1) the taking will be incidental to an otherwise
lawful activity; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the
impacts of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided;
(4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the
wild; and (5) other measures, if any, that the USFWS requires as being necessary or appropriate for
purposes of the plan will be met (16 USC Section 1539(a)(2)(A)).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-21
November 2016
USFWS San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
The Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego NWR encompasses portions of “100% Preserve” areas
identified in the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, generally located along the Otay River Valley in
the southwest portion of the planning area (Figure B-4 located in Appendix B). The entire San Diego NWR
comprises 44,000 acres and contains important preserves of coastal sage and chaparral habitats.
4.2.2.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
The CESA declares that deserving plant or animal species will be given protection by the state because
they are of ecological, educational, historical, recreational, aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the
people of the state. CESA establishes that it is state policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance
endangered species and their habitats. Under state law, plant and animal species may be formally
designated as rare, threatened, or endangered through official listing by the California Fish and Game
Commission. Listed species are given greater attention during the land use planning process by local
governments, public agencies, and landowners than are species that have not been listed.
On private property, endangered plants may also be protected by the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA)
of 1977. Threatened plants are protected by CESA, and rare plants are protected by the NPPA; however,
CESA authorizes that “Private entities may take plant species listed as endangered or threatened under
the FESA and CESA through a federal ITP issued pursuant to Section 10 of the FESA, if the CDFW certifies
that the ITS or ITP is consistent with CESA.” In addition, CEQA requires disclosure of any potential impacts
on listed species and alternatives or mitigation that would reduce those impacts.
CEQA: Treatment of Listed Plant and Animal Species
FESA and CESA protect only those species formally listed as threatened or endangered (or rare in the case
of the state list). Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines “endangered” species of
plants or animals as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy and
“rare” species as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their
environment worsens. Therefore, a project normally will have a significant effect on the environment if it
will substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. The
significance of impacts to a species under CEQA must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of
extinction despite legal status or lack thereof.
California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 783.4(a) and (b)
This section of the California Code of Regulations establishes standards for incidental take permit review.
Section 783.4(a) requires that a permit may only be issued if the criteria from Section 2080 (b) of the Fish
and Game Code are met. Section 783.4(b) states that no incidental take permit shall be issued if it would
jeopardize the continued existence of the species, based on the best scientific and other information that
is reasonably available. This includes consideration of the species' capability to survive and reproduce,
and any adverse impacts of the taking on those abilities in light of: (1) known population trends; (2) known
threats to the species; and (3) reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related projects
and activities.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-22
November 2016
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1601 to 1603
Streambeds and other drainages that occur within a CIP site are subject to regulation by the CDFW. The
CDFW considers most drainages to be “streambeds” unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. A stream
is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel
with banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or sub-
surface flow that supports, or has supported, riparian vegetation. CDFW jurisdiction typically extends to
the edge of the riparian canopy and, therefore, usually encompasses a larger area than USACE jurisdiction.
A Streambed Alteration Agreement must be obtained from the CDFW prior to commencement of any
activity that would substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow, or substantially change the bed,
channel or bank (which may include associated riparian resources), of a river, stream or lake, or deposit
or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it
may pass into any river, stream, or lake.
California Fish and Game Code Sections 20810(b) and 20810(c)
These sections of the Fish and Game Code establish that the CDFW may authorize, by permit, the take of
endangered species, threatened species, and candidate species if: (1) the take is incidental to an otherwise
lawful activity; (2) the impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated; (3) the permit is
consistent with any regulations adopted pursuant to Sections 2112 and 2114, which relate to recovery
strategies; and (4) the applicant ensures adequate funding to implement proposed mitigation measures,
and for monitoring compliance with, and effectiveness of, those measures. This regulation differs from
the CESA because it requires project impacts to be fully mitigated, with adequate funding ensured.
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5, and 3800
These sections of the Fish and Game Code prohibit the take or possession of birds, their nests, or eggs.
Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of
eggs or young) is considered a take. Such a take would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds.
ITPs are required from the CDFW for projects that may result in the incidental take of species listed by the
state as endangered, threatened, or candidate species. The permits require that impacts to protected
species be minimized to the extent possible and mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality
regulations. The Act established the SWRCB as the state-wide authority and nine separate RWQCBs to
oversee smaller regional areas within the state. The Act authorizes the SWRCB to adopt, review, and
revise policies for all waters of the state (including both surface and ground waters); and directs the
RWQCBs to develop regional Basin Plans. Section 13170 of the California Water Code also authorizes the
SWRCB to adopt water quality control plans on its own initiative. The Basin Plan for the San Diego Region
is designed to preserve and enhance the quality of water resources in the San Diego region for the benefit
of present and future generations. The purpose of the plan is to designate beneficial uses of the region’s
surface and ground waters, designate water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of those uses,
and establish an implementation plan to achieve the objectives.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-23
November 2016
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991
The Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act is designed to conserve natural communities
at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land uses. CDFW is the principal state agency
implementing the NCCP Program. The Act established a process to allow for comprehensive, regional
multi-species planning in a manner that satisfies the requirements of the state and FESAs (through a
companion regional HCP). The NCCP program has provided the framework for innovative efforts by the
state, local governments, and private interests, to plan for the protection of regional biodiversity and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. NCCPs seek to ensure the long-term conservation of multiple
species, while allowing for compatible and appropriate economic activity to proceed.
CDFW Ecological Reserves
A system of ecological reserves and wildlife areas have been established throughout California to provide
protection for plant and animal species and their habitats, especially those that are endangered or
threatened (CDFW 2016d). The ecological reserve system was authorized by the state legislature in 1968.
The mission of the reserve system is the conservation and protection of rare plants, animals and habitats,
and to provide areas for education and scientific research. Portions of the CDFW Rancho Jamul and
McGinty Mountain Ecological Reserves and the Hollenbeck Canyon Wildlife Area occur within the planning
area (Figure 4.2-4). In addition, a portion of the CDFW Otay Mountain Ecological Reserve occurs within
the “Area of Influence” associated with the planning area.
4.2.2.3 Local
MSCPs within the Planning Area
MSCPs are long-term regional conservation plans designed to establish connected preserve systems to
ensure the long-term survival of sensitive plant and animal species and to protect the native vegetation
found throughout San Diego County. The MSCP addresses the potential impacts of urban growth, natural
habitat loss, and species endangerment and creates a plan to mitigate for the potential loss of sensitive
species and their habitats. The County of San Diego MSCP covers 582,243 acres over 12 jurisdictions. Each
jurisdiction has its own subarea plan, which describes specific implementing mechanisms for the MSCP.
Any habitat set aside for the protection of biological resources in accordance with the MSCP is considered
sensitive. The MSCP divides habitats into tiers based on sensitivity, with habitat rankings from Tier 1 (most
sensitive) to Tier IV (least sensitive, includes disturbed land). The combination of the MSCP Subregional
Plan and subarea plans serve as a multiple species HCP (pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA and
the California NCCP Act of 1991 and CESA). The conservation measures specified in the MSCP provide for
“coverage” of 85 species of plants and animals (called covered species) under these state and federal
endangered species laws.
The City of San Diego MSCP subregional planning area encompasses 11 city jurisdictions, portions of
unincorporated San Diego County, and a few special districts. The planning area falls within portions of
the MSCP subarea plans for the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista. The County
of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan was approved by the wildlife agencies in October 1997. The County
subarea is located in the eastern part of the MSCP Subregion and encompasses 252,132 acres of
developed and undeveloped land (184,248 acres is habitat), and 101,268 acres will be conserved. The City
of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan was approved in July 1997. This subarea plan encompasses 206,124 acres
within the MSCP Subregion. Approximately 56,831 acres is classified as Multiple Habitat Planning Area
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-24
November 2016
(MHPA), of which 90 percent (52,012 acres) will be preserved for biological purposes. The City of Chula
Vista MSCP Subarea Plan was approved and adopted in May 2003. This subarea plan will preserve 9,243
acres, of which 4,993 acres are within the city limits and 4,250 acres are in the unincorporated area of San
Diego County. As of January 13, 2005, the City of Chula Vista was issued a Section 10(a)(1)(b) ITP by the
wildlife agencies, which grants the city long-term authorization to take (or impact) certain Covered Species
as defined in the CESA. In addition, this ITP provides the city the authority to allow a landowner or other
public or private entity to impact sensitive species covered under the city MSCP subarea plan.
County of San Diego Habitat Loss Permit Ordinance
The San Diego County Habitat Loss Permit (HLP) Ordinance was adopted in March 1994 in response to
both the listing of the California gnatcatcher as a federally threatened species and the adoption of the
NCCP Act by the State of California. Pursuant to the Special 4(d) Rule under the CESA, signatories to the
County of San Diego MSCP may be authorized to issue ITPs for the California gnatcatcher (in the form of
HLPs) in lieu of Section 7 or 10(a) permits, which are typically required from the USFWS. Although issued
by individual jurisdictions, such as the City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and San Diego County, the
wildlife agencies must concur with the issuance of a HLP for it to become valid as take authorization under
the CESA. The HLP Ordinance states that projects within the unincorporated county must obtain an HLP
prior to the issuance of a grading permit, clearing permit, or improvement plan if the project will directly
or indirectly impact any coastal sage scrub habitat types. The Ordinance requires an HLP if coastal sage
scrub or related habitat will be impacted, regardless of whether or not the site is occupied by California
gnatcatcher. HLPs are not required for projects within the boundaries of the MSCP since take
authorization is conveyed to those areas through compliance with the MSCP.
4.2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.2.3.1 Issue 1 – Sensitive Species and Habitats
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but not be limited to, the following SCP to
reduce potential impacts to sensitive or special-status species or sensitive habitats.
Bio-SCP-1 After completion of final grading for CIPs located adjacent to native vegetation, the
construction documents will require that all graded areas within 100 feet of native vegetation
are hydroseeded and/or planted with native plant species similar in composition to the
adjacent undisturbed vegetation communities. OWD or the construction contractor will
retain a qualified biologist to monitor these activities to ensure non-native or invasive plant
species are not used in the hydroseed mix or planting palettes. The hydroseeded/planted
areas will be watered via a temporary drip irrigation system or watering truck. Irrigation will
cease at some time after successful plant establishment and growth, to be determined by the
biologist. No fertilizers or pesticides will be used in the hydroseeded/planted areas. Any
irrigation runoff from hydroseeded/planted areas will be directed away from adjacent native
vegetation communities, and contained and/or treated within the development footprint of
individual projects. All planting stock will be inspected for exotic invertebrate pests (e.g.,
argentine ants) and any stock found to be infested with such pests will not be allowed to be
used in the hydroseeded/planted areas.
!(
#0")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U S A
M E X I C O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceCDFW LandsEcological ReserveWildlife Area
CDFW Ecological Reserves and Wildlife AreasFigure 4.2-4
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: CDFW 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.2-4 CDFW Ecological Reserves Wildlife Areas.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-26
November 2016
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it would result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any sensitive or special-status species or sensitive habitats identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
Impact Analysis
Potential biological impacts resulting from implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would vary by CIP
type (i.e., reservoirs, pump stations, pipelines, and groundwater wells), as discussed below.
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts include the direct destruction or displacement of biological resources from clearing,
grubbing, grading, and other initial land disturbance activities. Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update
would have the potential to result in direct impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species and/or
sensitive habitats. The impact acreages in Table 4.2-6 through Table 4.2-9 are based upon OWDs best
surface disturbance estimates by project type (e.g. storage, pump station, pipeline), and latest CIP project
locational data, combined with countywide vegetation community GIS data from SANDAG (2014). All
impact acreage numbers are approximate. In conjunction with consultation with CDFW and USFWS,
habitat type, presence, and quality, and sensitive species presence/absence would be verified by a
qualified biologist prior to CIP project final design and construction as part of the tiered CEQA process
referred to in Section 1.2 of this PEIR. Changes to the final design and construction would be made as
necessary to reduce direct impacts.
Reservoir/Storage Projects
Construction of CIP potable water storage projects located within sensitive habitats could result in direct
impacts to sensitive biological resources from temporary and permanent vegetation removal. Potable
water storage CIP projects, and type and acreage of sensitive habitats potentially impacted by
construction of the projects, are listed in Table 4.2-6. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitat
are likely to be directly impacted from the implementation of the proposed water storage CIPs. Disturbed
or developed areas are not considered sensitive habitats.
Table 4.2-6 Potable Water Storage CIPs, Sensitive Habitat Types, and Estimated Impact
Project
No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact
(Acres)
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2040 Regulatory Res - 1655-1 Reservoir, 0.5 MG Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Chaparral
0.6/
5.9
P2584 La Presa Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions None (Urban/Developed) --
Phase IIIA (2022 - 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2037 Central Res - 980-3 Reservoir, Resort Parcel, 4.0 MG Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 6.5
P2142 Regulatory Res - 1296-4 Reservoir, Village 14, 2.0 MG Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 6.5
P2431 Central Res - 980-4 Reservoir, 8.0 MG
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Non-native Grassland/
Eucalyptus Woodland
3.7/
2.4/
0.4
P2576 Central Res - 980-5 Reservoir, Village 14, 2.0 MG Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 6.5
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-27
November 2016
Table 4.2-6 Potable Water Storage CIPs, Sensitive Habitat Types, and Estimated Impact
Project No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact (Acres)
Phase IIIB (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2228 Otay Mesa Res - 870-2 Reservoir, 7.0 MG
(previously 10 MG)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
2.8/
3.7
P2233 La Presa Res - 640-3 Emergency Reservoir, 10.0 MG None (Disturbed Habitat/
Urban/Developed
--
P2235 Central Res - 624-4 Emergency Reservoir,
30.0 MG (previously 40 MG)
None (Extensive
Agriculture) --
Pump Station Projects
Construction of CIP pump stations located within sensitive habitats could result in direct impacts to
sensitive biological resources from temporary and permanent vegetation removal. Pump station CIP
projects, and sensitive habitats potentially impacted by construction of the projects, are listed in Table
4.2-7. Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, and grassland habitat are likely to be directly impacted from
the implementation of the proposed pump station CIPs. Disturbed or developed areas are not considered
sensitive habitats.
Table 4.2-7 Pump Station CIPs and Sensitive Habitat Types
Project
No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact
(Acres)
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2393 La Presa PS - Pointe Hydro Pump Station Expansion,
from 240 to 400 gpm Chamise Chaparral 2.9
P2579 Central PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station
Rehabilitation
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
1.2/
0.2
P2174 Regulatory PS - 1090-1 Pump Station Replacement and
Expansion, from 280 to 400 gpm
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Southern Mixed Chaparral
1.4/
0.3
Phase IIIA (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2002 Regulatory PS - 1296 -2 Proctor Valley Pump Station,
4,000 gpm Chamise Chaparral 2.9
P2256 Hillsdale PS - 978-2 Pump Station, 1,500 gpm Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 2.9
P2391 Central to
La Presa PS - Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm None
Coastal Sage/Chaparral --
P2577 Central PS - 980-2 Pump Station Expansion,
from 12,000 to 16,000 gpm
None (Urban/Developed/
Extensive Agriculture) --
P2578 Central PS - 711-2 (PS 711-1 replacement),
from 10,000 to 14,000 gpm
None (Urban/Developed/
Extensive Agriculture) --
P2585 La Presa PS - 1200-2 Pump Station, 1,000 gpm Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 2.9
P2202 Regulatory PS - 1296-1 Pump Station Expansion,
from 2,900 to 6,000 gpm Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.6
P2248 Regulatory PS - 944-1 Pump Station Expansion,
3,000 to 6,000 gpm
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest
1.3/
1.6
P2379 Regulatory PS - 832-1 Pump Station Expansion,
from 4,200 to 6,800 gpm Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 2.9
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-28
November 2016
Table 4.2-7 Pump Station CIPs and Sensitive Habitat Types
Project No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact (Acres)
P2411 Regulatory PL - 1296/944 PRS Upgrade 1296-1 Pump
Station Site
None
Coastal Scrub/Chaparral --
P2412 Regulatory PL - 944/832 PRS Upgrade 944-1 Pump
Station Site
None
Coastal Scrub/Chaparral --
Phase IIIB (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2392 Central PS - Lower Otay PS Replacement and
Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
0.7/
0.1
Pipeline Projects
Construction of CIP pipeline projects located within sensitive habitats could result in direct impacts to
sensitive biological resources from temporary and permanent vegetation removal. Pipeline CIP projects,
and sensitive habitats potentially impacted by construction of the projects, are listed in Table 4.2-8.
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, wetland, and grassland habitat are likely to be directly impacted
from the implementation of the proposed pipeline CIPs. Disturbed or developed areas are not considered
sensitive habitats.
Table 4.2-8 CIP Pipeline Projects and Sensitive Habitat Types
Project
No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact
(Acres)
Phase II (2017-2022)
P2400 Central PL - 16-in, 711 Zone, Otay Lakes Road -
Rutgers Ave to Eastlake Pkwy
None (Urban/Developed/
Extensive Agriculture) --
P2403 Central PL - 12-in, 624 Zone, Heritage Road -
Olympic/Otay Valley
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
0.5/
11.4
P2405 Central PL - 624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and
Hard Rock Road Tamarisk Scrub 0.1
P2451 Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and
Disinfection System
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Southern Mixed Chaparral/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Non-native Grassland/
Tamarisk Scrub
7.8/
0.1/
0.6/
13/
0.3
P2516 La Presa PL - 12-in, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road -
Darby/Osage None (Urban/Developed) --
P2553 Central Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and
Utility Relocation
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Freshwater Marsh/
Coastal & Valley Freshwater
Marsh/ Southern Riparian
Scrub/ Tamarisk Scrub None
0.2/
< 0.1/
0.2/
< 0.1/
0.5
P2574 Hillsdale
PL - 12-Inch and 14-inch Pipeline
Replacement, 803 and 978 Zone,
Vista Grande, Pence Drive
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 1.3
Phase IIIA (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2104 Central PL - 12-in, 711 Zone, La Media Road –
Birch/Rock Mountain None (Extensive Agriculture) --
P2106 Central PL - 12-in, 711 Zone, La Media Road –
Rock Mountain/Otay Valley None (Extensive Agriculture) --
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-29
November 2016
Table 4.2-8 CIP Pipeline Projects and Sensitive Habitat Types
Project No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact (Acres)
P2107 Central PL - 16- in, 711 Zone, Rock Mtn Road –
La Media Road None (Extensive Agriculture) --
P2116 Central PL - 16- in, 711 Zone, Rock Mtn Road –
SR 125/Eastlake Parkway None (Extensive Agriculture) --
P2135 Central PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, Otay Lakes Road to
Village 13
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Freshwater Marsh/
Mule Fat Scrub/
Eucalyptus Woodland
5.9/
1.7/
0.2/
0.2/
< 0.1
P2137 Central PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, Village 13 to
980-3 Reservoir
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Cismontane Alkali Marsh/
Mule Fat Scrub
6.0/
2.1/
< 0.1
P2138 Central PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, 980-3 Reservoir
Transmission PL
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
4.8/
0.2
P2148 La Presa PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, Resort Parcel
Transmission PL Phase 2
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
None 0.8
P2150 Central PL - 16-in, 458 Zone, East Palomar Street -
Medical Center/Raven
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
None < 0.1
P2156 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1485 Zone, Olive Vista Drive
Parallel
Chaparral/ Southern Coast
Live Oak Riparian Forest
< 0.1/
0.4
P2190 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1485 Zone, Jamul Highlands Chaparral/ Valley & Foothill
Grassland
0.6/
1.9
P2398 Central PL - 20-in, 624 Zone, Paseo Ladera
between Telegraph/Olympic Upsizing Non-native Grassland None 6.3
P2402 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, La Media Road -
Village 7/Otay Valley
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley and Foothill Grassland
< 0.1/
< 0.1
P2404 Central PL - 12-in, 624 Zone, Rock Mtn Road -
Village 4/Otay Valley
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Non-native Grassland
0.2/
0.7
P2500 Hillsdale Padre Dam - Otay Interconnection,
Dehesa Valley
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Chaparral/ Southern Coast
Live Oak Riparian Forest
0.3/
0.3/
0.1
P2554 Central 624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana
Avenue
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Non-native Grassland None
< 0.1/
0.7/
0.4
P2575 Regulatory 1485/1296 PRS - Presilla Drive and Jamul
Highlands Road Grassland
P2583 Central PL - 20-in, 624 Zone, Otay Mesa
Interconnect 711 PRS Bypass
Valley & Foothill Grassland
None 2.2
P2589 Otay Mesa PL - 24-in, 871 Zone, Donovan Prison None --
P2590 Central PL - 20-in, 624 Zone, Village 7 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
0.9/
6.6
P2033 Regulatory PL - 16-in, 1296 Zone, Melody Road -
Campo/Presilla
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest/ Coast Live
Oak Woodland
5.3/
< 0.1/
0.1/
< 0.1
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-30
November 2016
Table 4.2-8 CIP Pipeline Projects and Sensitive Habitat Types
Project No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact (Acres)
P2053 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 944 Zone, Campo Road -
944-1 Pump Station/944 Reservoirs
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest
4.9/
4.3
P2056 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1296 Zone, Jamul Drive
Replacement
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Chaparral/ Southern Coast
Live Oak Forest/ Eucalyptus
Woodland
1.6/
0.7/
0.2/
1.2
P2058 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road -
Pioneer/Campo (previously 24-in)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Southern Mixed Chaparral/
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest
0.7/
0.5/
2.8
P2122 Central PL - 20-in, 711 Zone, OTC to Hunte Parkway Coastal Sage/
Chaparral Riparian
P2171 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road -
Pioneer/Melody (previously 30-in)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
2.3/
< 0.1
P2181 Regulatory
PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road -
Proctor Valley PS/Millar Ranch (previously
30-in)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Chamise Chaparral/ Valley &
Needlegrass Grassland/
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
8.4/
12.7/
0.5/
2.2
P2188 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 832 Zone, Campo Rd –
Steele Canyon/944-1 Pump Station
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest/
Eucalyptus Woodland
< 0.1/
2.9/
2.3
P2197 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 832 Zone, 832-1 Pump Station to
832 Reservoirs Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 4.0
P2198 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 832 Zone, 832 Reservoirs to
Fair Oaks Drive
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest
2.1/
0.7/
3.2
P2203 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road -
Melody (previously 30-in)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
8.2/
2.3/
0.9
P2204 Regulatory
PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Pioneer Way -
Proctor Valley/1296 Reservoirs
(previously 24-in)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
None 0.6
P2407 La Presa Dictionary Hill Fireflow Capacity pipeline
Improvements Coastal Scrub/Chaparral --
P2430 Central PL - 20-in in Proctor Valley Road
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley and Foothill Grassland/
Non-native Grassland/
San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool/
Mule Fat Scrub/ Eucalyptus
Woodland
1.7/
11.2/
2.1/
2.2/
0.1/
< 0.1
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-31
November 2016
Table 4.2-8 CIP Pipeline Projects and Sensitive Habitat Types
Project No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact (Acres)
P2435 Central PL - 20-in, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley Road to
Proctor Valley PS
Chamise Chaparral/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Non-native Grassland/
Cismontane Alkali Marsh/
Mule Fat Scrub
7.2/
4.0/
0.1/
0.7/
0.2
P2580 Central PL - 12-in, 980 Zone, Bob Pletcher Pkwy
125 Freeway Crossing None --
P2581 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, Santa Victoria Road -
Olympic/Heritage
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
None 1.5
P2582 Central PL - 20-in, 711 Zone, Eastlake Pkwy
between Olympic and Birch Upsizing None --
P2586 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 832 Zone, Campo Road -
Florence Terrace/Steele Cyn
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest/
Eucalyptus Woodland
0.4/
< 0.1
P2587 Regulatory PL - 16-in, 1296 Zone, Jefferson Road -
Campo/Lyons Valley
Southern Coast Live Oak
Riparian Forest 0.7
P2588 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1296 Zone, Jamul Highlands
Road to Presilla Drive
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
1.0/
1.6
P2591 Regulatory PL - 16-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley to
1296-4 Reservoir
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Chamise Chaparral
9.8/
3.5
P2596 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, Village 3N –
Main St, Heritage Rd/Wolf Cyn
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Tamarisk Scrub
4.6/
1.9/
1.0
P2597 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, Main St, Wolf Canyon
Bridge
Maritime Succulent Scrub/
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Non-native Grassland
1.1/
1.9/
0.5/
1.1
P2598 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, Village 8W – Main St,
La Media/Village 4
None
Coastal Scrub/Chaparral --
P2599 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, Village 8W – Otay
Valley Rd, School/Village 8E
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
0.7/
1.3
P2600 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, Village 8E Valley & Foothill Grassland 3.1
P2602 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, Otay Valley Rd, SR 125
Bridge
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
< 0.1/
1.5
P2603 Central PL - 16-in, 711 Zone, Hunte Parkway,
SR 125 Bridge None --
P2511(2)
La Presa
to/from
Central
PL – Otay Interconnect (North District -
South District Interconnection)
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Southern Riparian Scrub
0.9/
5.2/
0.1
P2528 Central PL – 30-inch, 624 Zone, Manifold between
Res 624-1 & 624-2 None --
Phase IIIB (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2195 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 640 Zone, Campo Road -
Regulatory Site/Millar Ranch
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Coastal & Valley Freshwater
Marsh/ Southern Riparian
Forest/ Riparian Woodlands
0.1/
1.7/
0.2/
0.9/
1.0
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-32
November 2016
Table 4.2-8 CIP Pipeline Projects and Sensitive Habitat Types
Project No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat
Approximate Impact (Acres)
P2196 Regulatory PL - 24-in, 640 Zone, Millar Ranch Road to
832-1 Pump Station
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland
4.7/
0.5
P2374 Otay Mesa PL - 30-in, 870 Zone, 870-2 Reservoir to
870-1 Reservoir
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub/
Valley & Foothill Grassland/
Non-native Grassland
1.6/
2.2/
0.4
Miscellaneous CIP
Similar to the water supply projects described above, the miscellaneous CIP projects involve a variety of
project types, including installation of an air and vacuum ventilation system, demolition of an existing
reservoir and pump station, meter and vault installations, pipeline crossings, and distribution pipelines,
as listed in Table 4.2-9. Construction of miscellaneous CIP projects located within sensitive habitats could
result in direct impacts to sensitive biological resources from temporary and permanent vegetation
removal. Miscellaneous CIP projects, and sensitive habitats potentially impacted by construction of the
projects, are listed in Table 4.2-6. Coastal sage scrub and chaparral are likely to be directly impacted from
the implementation of the proposed miscellaneous CIPs. Disturbed or developed areas are not considered
sensitive habitats.
Table 4.2-9 Miscellaneous CIP Projects and Sensitive Habitat Types
Project No. System Project Description Sensitive Habitat? Approximate Impact (Acres)
Phase IIIA (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2575 Regulatory 1485/1296 PRS – Presilla Drive and Jamul
Highlands Road
Valley & Foothill
Grassland 0.2
P2437 Central Dis 624-4 Disinfection Facility None
P2482 Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well System None
P2517 Hillsdale Helix - Otay Interconnection, Chase Avenue Coastal
Scrub/Chaparral
Indirect Impacts
Potential indirect impacts to sensitive species and habitats from construction of CIPs under the 2015
WRMP Update could include impaired water quality, fugitive dust, noise, night lighting, staging areas, and
establishment and spread of invasive non-native plant species from graded areas. Potential indirect
impacts to sensitive species and habitats from long-term operations at above-ground CIP facilities (i.e.,
storage reservoirs/tanks and pump stations) under the 2015 WRMP Update could include impaired water
quality, noise from pumps, security night lighting, and establishment and spread of invasive non-native
plant species from graded areas. Potential impacts from impaired water quality (e.g., erosion/
sedimentation from graded areas, storm water runoff pollution from oil leaks during construction and
from paved areas post-construction, etc.) would be reduced to less than significant levels through
compliance with the NPDES program and Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) requirements (refer
to Geo-SCP-3 in Section 4.5.3.2 Geology and Hyd-SCP-1 in Section 4.7.3.1 Hydrology of this PEIR).
Temporary, construction-related impacts from fugitive dust impacts would be reduced to less than
significant levels through implementation of dust control Best Management Practices (BMPs) during
construction (refer to Air-SCP-1 in Section 4.1.3.2 Air Quality of this PEIR). Potential impacts due to
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-33
November 2016
establishment and spread of invasive non-native plant species from graded areas into adjacent native
vegetation communities would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the
measures listed in Bio-SCP-1 above. The remaining indirect impacts related to CIP construction activities
and from long-term operations at CIP storage reservoirs/tanks and pump stations are discussed below.
Noise
CIP construction activities would result in temporary increases in noise levels that could disturb sensitive
breeding birds and raptors that use adjacent native habitats for nesting and foraging.
For CIP pump stations located adjacent to native vegetation communities that could be used by sensitive
breeding birds and raptors, potential impacts due to permanent increases in noise levels from operation
of pumps would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Noi-PDF-1 (Section
4.10.3.1 Issue 1 Substantial Permanent Increases in Ambient Noise Levels of the PEIR), which requires the
placement of pumps, emergency generators, and any other motorized equipment within a masonry
enclosure.
Night Lighting
Night lighting used during nighttime construction of CIPs may alter nocturnal behavior patterns of wildlife
that use adjacent native habitats for nesting and foraging. Night lighting could also give nocturnal
predators an unnatural advantage over prey species, which could cause an increased loss of native
wildlife.
For above-ground CIP facilities (i.e., storage reservoirs/tanks and pump stations) under the 2015 WRMP
Update that would be located adjacent to native vegetation communities, potential impacts could occur
to nocturnal wildlife from increased predation due to “spill-over” of nighttime light levels into the adjacent
habitats from outdoor (security) lighting installed at these facilities. These potential impacts would be
reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Ene-PDF-2 (Section 4.4.3.1 Issue 1
Energy Consumption of the PEIR), which requires such lighting to be of low illumination (i.e., light emitting
diodes with motion-sensor lighting controls), shielded, and directed downwards and away from these
areas.
Other Construction-Related Impacts
Fueling and maintenance of equipment in construction staging areas could lead to accidental leaks or
spills resulting in storm water runoff contamination due to elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons that
could enter downstream drainages and wetlands. As stated above, such temporary, construction-related
impacts from decreased water quality would be reduced to less than significant levels through compliance
with the NPDES program and HMBP requirements (refer to Geo-SCP-3 in Section 4.5.3.2 Geology and Hyd-
SCP-1 in Section 4.7.3.1 Hydrology of this PEIR). CIP construction activities could result in inadvertent
intrusions of construction equipment and personnel into sensitive habitats adjacent to construction
zones.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of the following performance measures would reduce direct and indirect impacts to
sensitive species and habitats to less than significant levels.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-34
November 2016
Bio-1A During the design phase, OWD shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct biological surveys
as part of the “tiered” CEQA documentation for these projects, following the program
described in Section 1.2 (Intended Use and Purpose) of this PEIR.
Bio-1B If the biological surveys identified in performance measure Bio-1A determine the presence of
special-status species and/or sensitive or critical habitats on or adjacent to the CIP site, then
OWD shall map and quantify the impacts in a Biological Technical Report as part of the
“tiered” CEQA documentation referenced in Bio-1A. Detailed project-specific avoidance and
mitigation measures for significant impacts to biological resources shall be negotiated
between OWD and the regulatory agencies, as part of the approval and certification process
for the subsequent CEQA documentation. In addition, the following measures shall be
implemented, as applicable:
i. Six (6) weeks prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are
scheduled to occur between February 15 and August 30, a qualified biologist shall
commence focused surveys in accordance with USFWS protocols to determine the
presence or absence of the California gnatcatcher. Documentation of the survey results
shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 45 days of completing the final survey, as
required pursuant to FESA Section 10(a)(1)(A). If the survey results are negative, then no
further mitigation for California gnatcatcher is necessary and vegetation clearing can
occur at any time in the year following the survey; only mitigation for the habitat loss shall
be required (refer to Bio-1B(iv) below). If surveyed habitat is determined to be occupied
by California gnatcatcher, then the following measures shall be implemented:
a. Coastal sage scrub/gnatcatcher habitat shall not be removed during the gnatcatcher
breeding season (February 15 through August 30). Work that has commenced prior
to the breeding season shall be allowed to continue without interruption. If
gnatcatchers move into an area within 500 feet of ongoing construction noise levels
and attempt to nest, then it can be deduced that the noise is not great enough to
discourage gnatcatcher nesting activities. If work begins prior to the breeding season,
the contractor(s) should maintain continuous construction activities adjacent to
coastal sage scrub that falls within 500 feet, until the work is completed. However, if
clearing, grading and/or construction activities are scheduled to begin during the
gnatcatcher breeding season, then updated pre-construction surveys are necessary
as defined above. In addition, if these activities are initiated prior to, and extend into,
the breeding season, but they cease for any period of time and the contractor wishes
to restart work within the breeding season window, then updated pre-construction
surveys are also necessary. If these surveys indicate no nesting birds occur within the
coastal sage scrub that falls within 500 feet of the proposed work, then the adjacent
construction activities shall be allowed to commence. However, if the birds are
observed nesting within these areas, then the adjacent construction activities shall
be postponed until all nesting has ceased.
b. Noise monitoring shall be conducted if construction activities are scheduled during
the gnatcatcher breeding season; if the construction-related noise levels would
exceed 60 dB Leq (i.e., the noise threshold suggested by the USFWS for indirect
impacts to gnatcatcher); and if gnatcatchers are found within 500 feet of the noise
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-35
November 2016
source. Noise monitoring shall be conducted by a biologist experienced in both the
vocalization and appearance of California gnatcatcher, and in the use of noise meters.
Construction activities that generate noise levels over 60 dB Leq may be permitted
within 300 feet of occupied habitat if methods are employed that reduce the noise
levels to below 60 dB Leq at the boundary of occupied habitat (e.g., temporary noise
attenuation barriers or use of alternative equipment). During construction activities,
daily testing of noise levels shall be conducted by a noise monitor with the help of the
biologist to ensure that a noise level of 60 dB Leq at the boundary of occupied habitat
is not exceeded. Documentation of the noise monitoring results shall be provided to
OWD and USFWS within 45 days of completing the final noise monitoring event.
ii. Ten (10) days prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are
scheduled to occur between February 1 and August 15, surveys for nesting bird species
other than the California gnatcatcher, including those protected by the MBTA, shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist following applicable USFWS and/or CDFW guidelines.
If no active avian nests are identified within the disturbance limits, then no further
mitigation is necessary. However, if active nests for avian species of concern are found
within the disturbance limits, then species-specific measures prescribed by the MBTA
shall be implemented by a qualified biologist; a minimum buffer of 300 feet for passerine
and 500 feet for raptor species will be incorporated in order to minimize potential
disturbances to nesting birds from construction activities. Documentation of the
mitigation measures shall be provided to OWD and USFWS within 10 days after
implementation.
iii. Ten (10) days prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities that are
scheduled to occur during the raptor nesting season (generally January 15 through July
31), and where suitable trees (such as Eucalyptus spp.) for raptor nesting occur within 500
feet of such activities, pre-construction surveys for raptor nests shall be performed by a
qualified biologist. If no occupied raptor nests are identified in suitable trees on or within
500 feet of the construction site, then no further mitigation is necessary. Construction
activities within 500 feet of occupied nests shall not be allowed during the raptor breeding
season until a qualified biologist determines that the nests are no longer active.
Documentation of the raptor surveys and any follow-up monitoring, as necessary, shall
be provided to OWD and USFWS within 10 days of completing the final survey or
monitoring event.
iv. For CIPs that would affect non-listed sensitive species and sensitive vegetation
communities, the measures listed below shall be implemented prior to vegetation
clearing, grading and/or construction activities. In addition, applicable regulatory agency
permits and/or authorizations shall be obtained for CIPs that would affect federal and
state-listed species, and the conditions of such permits and/or authorizations shall be
implemented prior to vegetation clearing, grading and/or construction activities.
a. Special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-designated critical habitats),
sensitive vegetation communities and MSCP resources shall be avoided through
project design or site selection, to the extent practicable.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-36
November 2016
b. For unavoidable impacts to special-status species (and any corresponding USFWS-
designated critical habitats), sensitive vegetation communities and MSCP resources,
off-site mitigation shall be provided by one, or a combination of, the following
measures, in consultation with the USFWS and CDFW: 1) Debit credits from the San
Miguel HMA (Table 4.2-10 shows the status of the mitigation bank credits, as of the
date of this Final PEIR); 2) Contribute to the preserve system of other agency MSCPs
through land acquisition or purchase of mitigation banking credits; and 3) Enhance,
restore, create, and preserve in perpetuity off-site habitat areas at locations and
mitigation ratios to be approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies and in
compliance with the mitigation ratios, guidelines, and standards required by the
applicable MSCP subarea plans. Typical mitigation ratios for direct impacts to
sensitive vegetation types include 2:1 for coastal sage scrub; 3:1 for maritime
succulent scrub; 3:1 for native grassland; 2:1 for oak woodlands; 3:1 for southern
interior cypress forest; 3:1 for riparian woodlands/forests; 3:1 for coastal freshwater
marsh; 2:1 for riparian scrubs (absent threatened or endangered species); 5:1 for San
Diego mesa claypan vernal pools; 3:1 for Gabbroic chaparrals; and 0.5:1 for non-
native grassland (absent threatened or endangered species). These ratios will be
decreased or increased depending on whether the impacts and mitigation would
occur inside or outside an MSCP preserve area. For example, these ratios are typically
doubled if impacts occur within previously conserved lands. Plans for habitat
enhancement, restoration and creation shall be prepared by persons with expertise
in southern California ecosystems and native plant revegetation techniques. Such
plans shall include, at a minimum: (a) location of the mitigation site(s); (b) plant
species to be used, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) schematic depicting the
mitigation area(s); (d) planting schedule; (e) description of the irrigation
methodology; (f) measures to control exotic vegetation at the mitigation site(s); (g)
specific success criteria (e.g., percent cover of native and non-native species, species
richness); (h) 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 preserving the mitigation site(s) in perpetuity (including
conservation easements and management funding). In addition, OWD shall negotiate
and implement long-term maintenance requirements to ensure the success of the
mitigation site(s).
c. If federal permits or funding are required for CIPs (and listed species) that occur
within USFWS-designated critical habitat, then Section 7 Consultations with the
USFWS shall be initiated by the appropriate federal nexuspermitting agency.
Bio-1C Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities for CIPs that have the
potential to impact sensitive vegetation communities or special-status species (and any
corresponding USFWS-designated critical habitats), a qualified biologist shall attend a pre-
construction meeting to inform construction crews of the sensitive species and habitats
within and/or adjacent to these project sites.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-37
November 2016
Table 4.2-10 San Miguel HMA - Mitigation Bank Transaction Summary
Year Description Co
a
s
t
a
l
Sa
g
e
Sc
r
u
b
Ch
a
m
i
s
e
Ch
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
NN
G
/
S
a
g
e
Ec
o
t
o
n
e
Na
t
i
v
e
Gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
No
n
-na
t
i
v
e
Gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
No
n
-na
t
i
v
e
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
So
.
W
i
l
l
o
w
Sc
r
u
b
Ta
m
a
r
i
s
k
Sc
r
u
b
Po
n
d
s
Dr
y
M
a
r
s
h
/
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
Sc
r
u
b
Fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
Ma
r
s
h
Ag
r
i
.
F
i
e
l
d
/
Di
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
Total
Mitigation Bank Credit Summary
Initial Values 187.585 0.375 0.743 0.955 17.763 12.483 0.625 2.808 2.664 2.529 0.639 1.425 0.135 230.729
Mitigation Bank Transactions
1995 CIP #185 (7.630) (7.630)
1995 CIP #022, 140, 186 (1.930) (1.930)
1996 CIP #187 (4.300) (4.300)
1999 CIP #064 (1.460) (1.460)
1999 CIP #098 (1.150) (1.150)
1999 CIP W329, W330 (0.160) (0.160)
2000 CIP W192 (3.580) (3.580)
2000 CIP #136 (1.770) (1.770)
2001 Auld Golf Course (1.000) (1.000)
2004 CIP P2191 – 850-4 Res (4.97) (4.97)
2005 CIPs R001, R004, R022 (0.79) (4.99) (0.016) (5.796)
2006 CIP P2185 640-1 & 640-2 Res (23.68) (23.68)
Proposed Credit Transactions
2008 CIP P2143 1296-3 Res (1.28) (1.28)
2009 CIP R2086 – FM/AV (2.3) (0.14) (0.12) (2.56)
2010 CIP P2009 – Jamacha Rd (1.9) (1.9)
2010 CIP P2443 – 1296-3 Res (1.28) (1.28)
2011 CIP P2466 – SM Train Fac (0.366) (0.366)
2016 Final Values 146.819 0.375 0.603 0.835 9.193 12.483 0.609 2.808 2.664 2.529 0.639 1.425 0.135 181.117
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-38
November 2016
Bio-1D Prior to vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction activities, a qualified biologist shall
oversee installation of appropriate temporary fencing and/or flagging to delineate the limits
of construction and the approved construction staging areas for protection of identified
sensitive resources outside the approved construction/staging zones: All construction access
and circulation shall be limited to designated construction/staging zones. The fencing shall be
checked weekly to ensure that fenced construction limits are not exceeded. This fencing shall
be removed upon completion of construction activities. Construction staging areas shall be
located a minimum of 100 feet from drainages, wetlands and areas supporting sensitive
habitats or species. Fueling of equipment shall occur in designated fueling zones within the
construction staging areas. All equipment used within the approved construction limits shall
be maintained to minimize and control fluid and grease leaks. Provisions to contain and clean
up unintentional fuel, oil, fluid and grease leaks/spills shall be in place prior to construction.
Bio-1E During vegetation clearing, grading, and/or construction, a qualified biologist shall monitor
these activities: If sensitive species and/or habitats adjacent to these project sites are
inadvertently impacted by these activities, then the biologist shall immediately inform the on-
site construction supervisor who shall temporarily halt or redirect work away from the area
of impact. OWD shall immediately be notified of the impact and shall consult with the
appropriate regulatory agencies to determine the required mitigation, according to Bio-
1B(iv)(b) and (c) above. The biologist shall also ensure that all construction night lighting
adjacent to sensitive habitat areas is of low illumination, shielded, and directed downwards
and away from these areas.
Bio-1F Construction equipment will be checked by the biological monitor prior to use each morning
to ensure no sensitive wildlife species sheltered in or around any equipment left on site
overnight.
Bio-1G Trenches associated with pipe installation will be backfilled with earth at the end of each work
day to prevent wildlife access, with the exception of the end of the open pipe, which will be
left exposed. During installation, the area surrounding the end segment of exposed open pipe
will be sloped at the end of each work day at an angle to allow wildlife to easily escape. Also,
the open end of the exposed pipe will be covered at the end of each work day with a material
flush with the open pipe entrance such as a wooden board or cap such that no wildlife,
including smaller species like lizards, can enter the pipe. Should wildlife become trapped in
the vicinity of the open exposed pipe, the qualified biologist(s) will remove and relocate the
individual outside the construction zone.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-39
November 2016
4.2.3.2 Issue 2 – Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural
Communities
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed 2015 WFMP Update would result in a
significant impact if it would have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS.
Impact Analysis
Section 4.2.3.1 (Issue 1 Special Status Plant and Wildlife Species) describes the proposed project’s impact
to sensitive natural communities. As stated in this section, the proposed project would result in a
potentially significant impact to sensitive habitats in the planning area from direct and indirect impacts
associated with the 2015 WFMP implementation. Therefore, the following section focuses solely on
riparian habitats. Riparian communities occur along rivers, streams, and other drainages in the
unincorporated county. According to the Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (CPF 2004), riparian habitats are
defined as habitats along the banks or otherwise adjacent to freshwater bodies, watercourses, estuaries,
and other surface waters. These areas can be perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. Riparian areas
connect terrestrial and aquatic habitats and provide linkages between water bodies and upstream
vegetation communities. The available water provides soil moisture in excess of that typically available in
upland habitats.
Implementation of some of the CIPs located in the OWD planning area (refer to Tables 4.2-6, 4.2-7, and
4.2-8 and Figures 4.2-1a - f) would have the potential to result in directs and indirect impacts to riparian
habitat and other sensitive natural communities (refer to Section 4.2.3.1).
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio 1A-1E 1G would reduce direct and indirect impacts to riparian
habitats and other sensitive natural communities to less than significant levels.
4.2.3.3 Issue 3 – Federally Protected Wetlands
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed 2015 WFMP Update would result in a
significant impact if it would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.
Impact Analysis
Federally protected wetlands are defined in Section 404 of the CWA as areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-40
November 2016
Implementation of some of the CIPs located in the OWD planning area (refer to Tables 4.2-7 and 4.2-8
and Appendix B: Figure B-1) would have the potential to result in directs and indirect impact to federally
protected wetlands. These projects would comply with applicable federal regulations such as Section 401
and 404 of the CWA.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio 1A-1E would reduce direct and indirect impacts to federally
protected wetlands to less than significant levels.
4.2.3.4 Issue 4 – Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery
Sites
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the 2015 WFMP Update would result in a significant impact
if it would 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.
Impact Analysis
Implementation of some of the CIPs located in the OWD planning area (refer to Tables 4.2-7 and 4.2-8
and Figure 4.2-3) would have the potential to temporarily impact wildlife movement corridors. Some of
the CIPs are within the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio 1A-1E 1G would reduce direct and indirect impacts to wildlife
movement corridors to less than significant levels.
4.2.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources (Issue 5)?
As discussed in Section 4.9.2.1 (Land Use and Planning) of this PEIR, according to Section 53091 of the
California Government Code, zoning ordinances (and by inference the planning policies of local land use
agencies) do not apply to the location or construction of facilities used for the production, generation,
storage, or transmission of water. Nevertheless, with implementation of performance measures Bio-1A
through Bio-1E, the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with local policies and ordinances pertaining
to the protection of biological resources, such as the County of San Diego HLP Ordinance, City of San Diego
Environmentally Sensitive Lands regulations, and the MSCPs for the County of San Diego, City of San Diego
and City of Chula Vista. Therefore, no further analysis is required.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-41
November 2016
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update conflict with any HCPs or NCCPs (Issue 6)?
The 2015 WFMP projects will be designed to comply with all approved local, regional, state, and federal
regulations, policies, and ordinances. The OWD is not a participant in the San Diego County MSCP
Subregional Plan and is not subject to the provisions of that plan. The Otay subarea plan is not yet
developed or approved. Therefore, no conflicts will occur with any approved regional, state, or federal
regulations, policy, ordinance, or plan. Figure 4.2-2 presents MSCP areas within and adjacent to the OWD
planning area.
4.2.5 References
AECOM. 2015. Otay Mesa Conveyance and Disinfection System Draft EIR/EIS. Prepared for Otay Water
District.
American Ornithologist Union (AOU). 2016. Checklist of North and Middle America Birds. Accessed May
4, 2016 at http://checklist.aou.org/taxa/
Auk-Ornithological Advances. 2015. Fifty-Six Supplement to the AOU Check-list of North American Birds.
Volume 132.
Baldwin, B.G, D.H. Goldman, D.J Keil, R. Patterson, T.J Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson
Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. January.
Calflora. 2016. Calflora Plant Observation Library. Data provided by the participants of Calflora. Accessed
April 29, 2016 at http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/occform.cgi
CalidforniaHerps.2016. Accessed April 29, 2016 at http://www.Californiaherps.com
California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California.
Accessed April 2016 at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/pdfs/natcomlist.pdf
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and
Mammal Species in California. September. Accessed April 29, 2016 at
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/pdfs/species_list.pdf
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016b. Special Animals. California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California. Accessed April
29, 2016 at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016a. State and Federally Listed Endangered,
Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural
Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. Accessed April 29, 2016 at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/genplantsanimals.html
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016c. List of California Terrestrial Natural
Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database. September.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016d. Ecological Reserves and Wildlife Areas. May.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-42
November 2016
California Native Plant Society. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants Electronic Inventory.
Accessed May 4, 2016 at http://cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi
City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista). 2003. Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. February. Available at
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7106
City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista). 2014. City of Chula Vista MSCP 2014 Annual Report. Available at
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=272
City of San Diego. 1996. Multiple Species Conservation Program, MSCP Plan Volume I. August.
City of San Diego. 1997. Final City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. March 1997. Available at
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/mscp/pdf/subareafullversion.pdf
City of San Diego. 2009. San Diego Municipal Code, Land Development Code. Biology Guidelines.
(Amended) August 2009. Available at
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/pdf/cpc/agendas/attachments/ldcbiologyguide
draft.pdf
City of San Diego. 2012. San Diego Municipal Code. Land Development Code. Regulations, Amendments,
and Related Documents (Amended) April 2012. Accessed April 29, 2016 at
http://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/industry/landdevcode/#code
Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 157pp.
Museum of Texas Tech University. 2003. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of
Mexico. Number 229. December.
Oberbauer, T. 1996. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities in San Diego County Based on Holland’s
Descriptions. San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, California. 6 pp.
Oberbauer, T. M., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County.
Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California”
prepared by Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986). March 2008. Accessed April 30, 2016 at
http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-
Files/references/rtcref/ch9.0/rtcrefaletters/O14%202014-12-19_OberbauerTM2008.pdf
San Diego Management and Monitoring Program. 2016. Accessed April 26, 2016 at
http://portal.sdmmp.com/index.php
San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM). 2016. San Diego County Plant Atlas Project. Accessed April
28, 2016 at http://www.sdplantatlas.org/(S(gn2sqn45kw1fmc45trphjz55))/index.aspx
SANGIS 2016. SANDGIS Interactive Map. Information provided by the participants of SANGIS. Available
at http://sdgis.sandag.org
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-43
November 2016
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Federal Register. 50 CFR Parts 10 and 21. General
Provisions; Revised List of Migratory Birds, Final Rule. November 1. Volume 78(212): 65844-
65862. Department of the Interior.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetland Mapper. Accessed
April 2016 at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016b. Critical Habitat Mapper-GIS layers. Accessed April 2016 at
http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/flex/crithabMapper.jsp
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.2 Biological Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.2-44
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-1
November 2016
4.3 Cultural Resources
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WRMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to cultural resources; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) related to these issues resulting from development of CIP projects under the 2015 WRMP
Update; and the project design features, standard construction practices, and mitigation/ performance
measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts.
4.3.1 Environmental Setting
4.3.1.1 Definition of Resources
CEQA-defined cultural resources include prehistoric resources and historical-period resources. Title 21
Section 21.03 governs the meaning of words used in both Title 21 and the San Diego County General Plan
Conservation Element. Prehistoric resources are physical properties resulting from human activities that
predate written records and are generally identified as isolated finds or archaeological sites. Prehistoric
resources can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters, roasting pits/hearths,
milling features, rock features, and burials. Historic resources consist of physical properties, structures, or
built items resulting from human activities after the time that written records were kept for a region. In
San Diego, the historical-period is generally considered equivalent to the time period since European
contact, beginning in A.D. 1542 when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo first visited the region. Historic resources
can include archaeological remains and architectural structures.
4.3.1.2 Cultural Resources Setting
Cultural resources within the planning area range from prehistoric resources dating back to 10,000 years
Before Present (B.P.), to more recent historic artifacts associated with early Spanish, Mexican, and
European settlers, as described below.
Prehistoric Setting
Early Prehistoric Period (10,000 years B.P.)
Early migrations of people into San Diego County may have come from the north, likely from the region
currently known as Santa Barbara. Recent work on the northern Channel Islands off the coast of Santa
Barbara demonstrates the presence of people on the islands during the end of the Pleistocene, roughly
11,600 years ago. At this time, the population is thought to have been completely marine-adapted,
exploiting shellfish and navigating with seaworthy boats through the Pacific Ocean. Artifacts from the
Channel Islands also demonstrate that by 10,000 years B.P., fish were captured using instruments carved
from bone. Evidence from this time period is lacking for the adjacent Santa Barbara mainland, a fact that
is attributed to inundation by coastal waters. It is thought that post-Pleistocene de-glaciation events
inundated coastal regions throughout Santa Barbara and other coastal areas, including San Diego, which
during the late Pleistocene/early Holocene periods was two to six kilometers (km) farther seaward than
today’s coast. Therefore, any evidence for early coastal adaptation in San Diego County synchronous with
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-2
November 2016
that in the Santa Barbara region may have been destroyed within this two to six km paleo-shoreline area
by sea encroachment thousands of years ago.
The early prehistoric period of San Diego County is typified by the San Dieguito complex or tradition.
Initially believed to be big game hunters, the San Dieguito people are better classified as a hunter-gatherer
society. These people had a relatively diverse and non-specialized economy typified by relatively mobile
bands of people who accessed and used a wide range of plant, animal, and lithic (stone) resources. Manos
and metates found on San Dieguito sites suggest that these people relied on seed and vegetable foods for
sustenance. Diagnostic artifacts associated with San Dieguito sites include scraper planes, choppers,
scraping tools, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and leaf-shaped points (HDR 2004). Debate
continues as to whether these people, who occupied both inland and coastal areas, abandoned San Diego
County approximately 8,500 years ago (HDR 2004) or remained and adapted by using new tools and
cultural activities.
Some researchers have identified sites located in transverse valleys and sheltered canyons and dating to
the early prehistoric period as the La Jolla Tradition, although these sites have also been cited as the
Pauma Complex (HDR 2004). Alternatively, others have identified these sites as belonging to the same
cultural group. The latter identification relies on a hypothesis that views the Early Period (from 10,000
years B.P. to 1,300 years B.P) as a settlement by only one cultural group. It is thought that only one group
was present during this period because artifacts demonstrate discrete modifications in relation to
previous artifacts, presumably as a response to environmental changes and sustenance demands during
that time. Such cultural sites, which demonstrate a generally sedentary occupation, have been defined
as having a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), no shellfish remains, and notable
tool variety, with an emphasis on both gathering and hunting (HDR 2004).
The Early Prehistoric Period was not environmentally stable, a fact that is demonstrated by the way in
which timing of siltation events and the abundance of lagoon resources (i.e., shellfish and fish) coincide
with evidence of occupation near coastal resources. Radiocarbon evidence from sites adjacent to coastal
lagoons throughout San Diego indicate that large populations were supported by lagoon resources
approximately 6,000 years B.P. These sites do not appear to have been occupied between 3,000 years
B.P. to approximately 1,300 years B.P. This absence of prehistoric occupation coincides with siltation in
coastal lagoons and depletion of resources that are known to also have occurred during that time period
(HDR 2004).
Late Prehistoric (1,500 B.P. to 200 B.P.)
By 2,000 years B.P., Yuman speaking people occupied the Gila and Colorado River drainage areas in
eastern San Diego County (HDR 2004). These people were thought to occupy the San Diego coast during
their pre-ceramic phase approximately 2,000 years B.P., with ceramics being introduced into San Diego
County from the eastern deserts approximately 1,200 B.P. Yuman cultural traits may have been present
in San Diego County before 2,000 years B.P.; however, Yuman influence is well documented after 1,200
years B.P. with the presence of small projectile points, pottery, Obsidian Butte obsidian, and cremation of
the dead. The relationship between Early Prehistoric Period occupants and Yuman, specifically the
Kumeyaay and Diegueño complexes is not well understood. The early occupants of San Diego County may
have been assimilated by Yuman speakers or they may have been displaced (HDR 2004).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-3
November 2016
Historic Setting
Regional
The following presents a brief background of San Diego history. The purpose of this is to provide
background information with regards to the presence, chronological significance, and historical
relationship of cultural resources within the planning area. Due to San Diego’s historical ties with Spain
and Mexico, the history of the region is best described in relation to its historical political interactions with
these two countries.
The Spanish Period (1769-1821) is typified by exploration. During this period the San Diego presidio and
the San Diego and San Luis Rey missions were established; horses, cattle, and agricultural goods were
introduced to the region; and a new method of building construction and architectural style became
prevalent. Although this period is considered to have ended in 1821 (when California became a part of
Mexico), Spanish influence occurred after this year because the missions continued to operate as they
had in the past and laws governing the distribution of land were also retained for a period of time.
The Mexican Period (1821-1848) can be defined as a transitional period, which involved the continuation
of Spanish laws and practices until shortly before the San Diego Mission was secularized in 1834. In 1834,
San Diego was officially recognized by the Mexican government as a municipality, known as the Pueblo of
San Diego. During this time the Pueblo of San Diego expanded roads and held large amounts of pueblo
(public) lands. After 1834, Mexico began creating ranchos throughout California via land grants. During
this period in California, agricultural activities were focused on cattle ranching which greatly increased the
trade of hides and tallow. The Mexican Period ended as a result of the Mexican-American War.
The American Period (1848-Present) is officially marked by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Treaty),
during which Mexico ceded the land now known as California to the U.S. in 1848. Following American
rule and land dispute issues, the Lands Commission was created under the Act of 1851 to validate land
ownership claims and settle ownership disputes. Under the Lands Commission and American rule, it was
difficult for Mexican landowners to prove ownership, and many Mexican ranchos were sold and the land
was divided. The majority of this divided land was settled by people immigrating to California. After
discovery of gold, the cessation of the Civil War, and the passage of the Homestead Act (which made large
amounts of land available in California), immigration to California increased greatly, including people
immigrating to the San Diego region. Economic instability in the late 1800s, also known as the “boom and
bust,” caused fluctuations in populations throughout California and especially in San Diego during this
time.
Local
There are several communities located within the planning area, including Chula Vista, San Ysidro, Otay,
and others. Many of these communities have historic associations with ranchos, and specifically the
planning area has a direction connection with three ranchos (Proctor Valley, Otay Ranch, and National
Ranch). The following provides a brief history of these three ranchos, and then explains a more current
history of the communities associated with the planning area.
Ranchos
In 1829, Governor Echeandia of Mexico granted the 4,436-acre Janal Rancho (now known as Proctor
Valley) to Don Jose Antonio Estudillo, and granted the 6,657-acre Otay Rancho to Dona Magdalena
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-4
November 2016
Estudillo (HDR 2004). The Estudillo family retained their ranchos even after American occupation because
they were able to prove ownership to the Lands Commission and obtain patents for the land. While the
Otay Rancho (Otay Ranch) remained relatively intact, the Janal Rancho changed greatly over the years in
terms of boundaries and land uses. Portions of Janal Rancho became part of the Otay Ranch and, in later
years, the western portion became known as the Fenton Ranch. While the full details of ownership are
unknown, by 1913 the Estudillos no longer owned the Otay Rancho, because the land was held as a larger
(7,072-acre) holding by the San Diego Land Company. Similarly, a topographic map from the U.S. Geologic
Services (USGS) dating to 1903 shows the eastern portion of the Janal Rancho demolished by development
of the Otay Reservoir.
National Ranch was granted to John Forster in 1845, but was later owned by the Kimball brothers. The
Kimball brothers subdivided the land to build homes and small farms, and this rancho later became land
now known as National City and Chula Vista.
During the Mexican Period and the beginning of the American Period, agricultural activities at the ranchos
were conducted communally. Agricultural production constituted the economic base for each of the
ranchos, and the majority of their earnings came from cattle ranching. However, in the late 1800s the
ranchos began producing crops such as barley and wheat. Much later, in the late 1930s, lima beans were
grown on the ranchos, particularly on Rancho Janal. While agricultural production was the mainstay of
the ranchos, a parcel of land to the east of Otay Ranch and directly south of Lower Otay Reservoir has
been used for water production and associated with the reservoir since the 1800s. Construction of the
Lower Otay Dam was completed in 1897, serving the South Bay communities until its destruction as a
result of the flood of 1916 (Pryde 1976). The City of San Diego rebuilt the reservoir in 1919.
Communities
Otay Valley (the Valley) should be distinguished from Otay Mesa, which was referred to as the Big Mesa
in past times. While these areas are geographically distinguishable, people from both areas historically
connected for social purposes and for utilization and trade of agricultural goods. The exact settlement of
this area is unknown. An excerpt from the San Diego Union from February 24, 1891 states that settlement
began in 1889, while in 1890 the National City Record noted that an Italian Colony had existed in the area
since 1879. Despite these discrepancies, it is clear from both of these historic resources that agricultural
production, namely orchard crops, played a large role in the local economy in this area during the late
1800s.
Chula Vista was initially developed in 1888 by the Kimball brothers, who owned the San Diego Land and
Town Company. However, it did not become an incorporated city until 1911. When Chula Vista did
become an incorporated city, the area was well known for lemon production, in fact it became known as
“the largest lemon growing center in the world” (HDR 2004). Land uses in Chula Vista were primarily
agricultural until the 1970s, when industrial and manufacturing uses became prevalent. Other than lemon
production, prior to the 1970s, Chula Vista was known for having a kelp harvesting plant, and for sand and
gravel distribution from Otay Valley. Placement of the Rohr Aircraft Company in Chula Vista in the early
1900s was another important employment center, which also helped to bring other businesses to town
(HDR 2004). Following the shift from agricultural production, Chula Vista became a booming town with
high residential growth, mainly in the eastern part of the city (City of Chula Vista 2008).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-5
November 2016
4.3.2 Regulatory Framework
The treatment of cultural resources is governed by federal and California laws and guidelines. There are
specific criteria for determining whether prehistoric and historic sites or objects are significant and/or
protected by law. Federal and state significance criteria generally focus on the resource’s integrity and
uniqueness, its relationship to similar resources, and its potential to contribute important information to
scholarly research. Some resources that do not meet federal significance criteria may be considered
significant under state criteria. The laws and regulations seek to mitigate impacts to significant prehistoric
or historic resources. The federal and state laws and guidelines for protecting cultural resources are
summarized below.
4.3.2.1 Federal
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the framework that focused local, state,
and national efforts with regards to the preservation of historic and archaeological resources. Section 106
of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic
properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to
comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations
issued by ACHP (36 CFR Part 800). The Section 106 process involves efforts to identify historic properties
potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate
any adverse effects on historic properties. In order to help identify these historic properties and provide
community involvement, consulting parties are identified through coordination with the appropriate
State Historic Preservation Officer and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer.
National Register of Historic Places
The NHPA established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the official federal list of cultural
resources that have been nominated by state offices for their historical significance at the local, state, or
national level. Listing on the NRHP provides recognition that a property is significant to the nation, the
state, or the community and assumes that federal agencies consider historic values in the planning for
federal and federally assisted projects. Properties listed in the NRHP, or “determined eligible” for listing,
must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting.
Structures and features must usually be at least 45 years old to be considered for listing on the NRHP,
barring exceptional circumstances. Criteria for listing on the NRHP, which are set forth in 36 CFR Part 63,
include: significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture as present
in districts, sites, buildings, structures; and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and that are:
■ Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history;
■ Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-6
November 2016
■ Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the
work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction; or
■ Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Eligible properties must meet at least one of these criteria and exhibit integrity, measured by the degree
to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to
which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibility of changes to the property. These criteria
have largely been incorporated into Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (also refer to Section 4.5.3
below).
Federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA)
Passed in 1990, the federal NAGPRA provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return
certain Native American cultural items - human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of
cultural patrimony - to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian
organizations. NAGPRA includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American
cultural items, intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on federal and
tribal lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking.
Federal curation regulations are also provided in 36 CFR Part 79 which apply to collections that are
excavated or removed under the authority of the Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431-433), the Reservoir
Salvage Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c), Section 110 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470h-2), or the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm). Such collections generally include those that are the
result of a prehistoric or historic resources survey, excavation or other study conducted in connection
with a federal action, assistance, license or permit.
4.3.2.2 State
California NAGPRA
The California NAGPRA, enacted in 2001, requires all state agencies and museums that receive state
funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as
defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003,
with certain exceptions. California NAGPRA also provides a process for the identification and repatriation
of these items to the appropriate tribes.
California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054
These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains, as well as the
disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such remains from
disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if
Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment
of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. Code Section 7050.5 states
that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 (refer to second paragraph below).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-7
November 2016
The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to
be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will
determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site
within 24 hours of notification, and may recommend scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of
human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
California Register of Historic Resources (PRC Section 5020 et seq.)
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR). Properties listed, or formally designated as eligible for listing, on the NRHP are automatically
listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes properties
designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
State law seeks to protect cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and
historical resources in CEQA documents. An important historical resource is one that meets any of the
criteria in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which are nearly identical to those for the NRHP,
and are listed in Section 4.5.3 below. CEQA Section 15064.5(a)(4) also affords the Lead Agency the ability
to determine whether a resource may be considered historical without it being listed in the CRHR. An
archaeological deposit that has been extensively disturbed, or archaeological artifacts found in isolation,
may not be eligible for listing on the CRHR because the lack of stratigraphic context may impair the ability
of the resource to yield significant data.
California Native American Historic Cultural Sites (PRC Section 5097
et seq.)
State law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such
remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be
implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and
establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native
American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail to
deface or destroy an historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
California PRC Section 21083.2(g)
“Unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be
clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high
probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
■ Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, and there is a
demonstrable public interest in that information.
■ Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available
example of its type.
■ Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-8
November 2016
California PRC Section 21083.2(h)
“Non-unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site which does not
meet the criteria in subdivision (g) above. A non-unique archaeological resource need be given no further
consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the Lead Agency if it so elects.
Assembly Bill 52
Effective on July 1, 2015, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) adds tribal cultural resources as an issue under the
Cultural Resources CEQA environmental topic, which was previously limited to historic, archaeological,
and paleontological resources. Tribal cultural resources are defined as either:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are included in the state register of resources or a local
register of historical resources or that are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the state
register; or
2. Resources determined by the lead agency, in its discretion, to be significant based on the criteria
for listing in the state register.
Further, recognizing that tribes may have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52
requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area.
If the tribe requests consultation within 30 upon receipt of the notice, the lead agency must consult the
tribe. Consultation as defined under AB 52 includes, but is not limited to, discussing the type of
environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of tribal
cultural resources, the significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and
alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe. Parties must consult in good faith and
consultation is deemed concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a
significant effect on a tribal cultural resources (if such a significant effect exists) or when a party concludes
that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Further, under AB 52, mitigation measures agreed upon during
consultation must be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and, if no formal
agreement on the appropriate mitigation has been established, mitigation measure that avoid significant
impacts that have been identified in AB 52 should be implemented.
4.3.2.3 Local
San Diego County Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO)
The County RPO requires that cultural resources be evaluated as part of the County’s discretionary
environmental review process and if any resources are determined significant under RPO, they must be
preserved. The County RPO prohibits development, trenching, grading, clearing, and grubbing, or any
other activity or use that may result in damage to significant prehistoric or historic site lands, except for
scientific investigations with an approved research design prepared by an archaeologist certified by the
Society of Professional Archaeologists. The County RPO limits the alteration of significant prehistoric and
historic site lands without prior approved research design by a certified archaeologist. Sites determined
to be highly significant must be preserved. Local historic records are managed at the South Coastal
Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University (SDSU), and at the San Diego Museum of Man.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-9
November 2016
San Diego County Zoning Ordinance
The County Zoning Ordinance provides for the designation and regulation of “special areas.” One type of
special zoning area is a County Historic/Archaeological Landmark District. These resources may be
assigned an “H” designator for historic areas or a specific district designator (e.g., Julian has a “J”
designator). The purpose of these provisions is to identify, preserve, and protect the historic, cultural,
archaeological and/ or architectural resource values of designated landmarks and districts. Zoning
regulations for these resources are designed to preserve their integrity and content.
San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources
The purpose of the County Local Register of Historical Places (adopted 2002) is to develop and maintain
“an authoritative guide to be used by state agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the County’s
historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and
feasible, from substantial adverse change.” Sites, places, or objects that are eligible to the NRHP or the
CRHR are automatically included in the County Local Register of Historical Places.
San Diego County Historic Sites Board
The function of the County Historic Sites Board (advisory body) is to provide decision makers with input
regarding archaeological and historic cultural resources. The Historic Sites Board is responsible for
reviewing resources seeking participation in the Mills Act and projects with significant cultural resources.
City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program (HPP)
The purpose of the City of Chula Vista Historic Preservation Program (developed in 2011) is to provide
historic preservation ordinance, standards and guidelines of preservation, and outlined identification and
preservation process of Chula Vista’s historical resources.
4.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.3.3.1 Issue 1 – Historical Resources
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following PDFs
to reduce potential impacts to potential historical resources:
Cul-PDF-1 Approximately six months prior to demolition of P2584 (Reservoirs 657-1 and 657-2),
OWD will retain a qualified architectural historian to conduct a historical building
assessment. The architectural historian will record, on a California Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) 523 form, or equivalent documentation, the potential historical
resources, if any, that would be affected by this CIP project. The forms will be filed with
the SCIC to receive Primary numbers and Trinomials. Should the analysis involved in
completing the DPR 523 form indicate that a particular structure does not meet the
eligibility criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Places, then no further
research and documentation is necessary (a 6-week to 2-month process). If, however, the
structure is determined to be a historical resource, then measure Cul-PDF-2 will be
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-10
November 2016
implemented. OWD will provide a copy of the historical building assessment and DPR 523
form to the San Diego County Archaeological Society (SDCAS).
Cul-PDF-2 For each structure determined to be a historical resource according to measure Cul-PDF-
1, the architectural historian will oversee the following documentation and treatment
program:
i. Prior to alteration, remodeling, renovation, relocation, and/or demolition of the
historical resource, the architectural historian will document the structure, and
associated landscaping and setting, via still and video photography (to be provided on
a CD-ROM) and will prepare a written record in accordance with the standards of the
Historic American Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record
(HAER), including accurate scaled mapping, architectural descriptions, and scaled
architectural plans (if available). The record will be accompanied by a report
containing site-specific history and appropriate contextual information. This
information will be gathered through site-specific and comparative archival research,
and oral history collection as appropriate.
ii. For historical resources that will be demolished, additional mitigation beyond
HABS/HAER documentation may be necessary. The extent of mitigation will depend
upon the importance of the historical resources to be demolished and will be
determined in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation. Mitigation
may include, but not be limited to, the preparation/dissemination of an informational
brochure, interpretive displays about the history of the area, and website
development and links to other historical buildings.
iii. Within three months after completion of documentation and treatment of the
affected historical resources, a copy of the photographic and written record and
HABS/HAER report will be submitted to SCIC.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3). Under these provisions, a Lead Agency shall find that
a historical resource is significant if it meets one or more of the criteria for listing on the CRHR, which
extends to any building, structure, feature, or site that:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
3. 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
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the
local area, California, or the nation.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-11
November 2016
As stated in Section 4.3.2.1 above (under the discussion of the federal NHPA), with few exceptions, for a
structure or building to qualify as a historical resource it must be at least 45 years old and retain physical
integrity relevant to its period of significance. A resource that does not meet any of the criteria for
eligibility to the CRHR is not a historical resource under CEQA, and impacts to such a resource are not
significant.
Impact Analysis
The buildings that would be demolished under the 2015 WFMP Update would include two reservoirs on
one site P2584 (Reservoirs 657-1 and 657-2), a chlorine disinfection facility on the site of P2228 (Res 870-
2). The chlorine disinfection facility was built in 1993 at the time of construction of Res 870-1, and
therefore would not qualify as an historical resource. PS 657-1 and PS 657-2 are both more than 45 years
of age, being built in 1957 and 1959, respectively. As these buildings are of the age to potentially be
considered historical resources, an assessment would be conducted by a qualified architectural historian
prior to their demolition and if they are determined to be potentially historic, then HABS/HAER
documentation and additional mitigation measures would be implemented, as necessary. Therefore,
implementation of Cul-PDF-1 and Cul-PDF-2 would reduce any impacts to potential historical resources
associated with the demolition of P2584 (Reservoirs 657-1 and 657-2) under the 2015 WFMP Update to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
If one or both of the existing reservoir structures associated with P2584 (Reservoirs 657-1 and 657-2)
demolition project are determined to be historical structures according to Cul-PDF-1, then
implementation of Cul-PDF-2 would reduce impacts to these potential historical resources to a less than
significant level; therefore, no further mitigation is required.
4.3.3.2 Issue 2 – Archaeological Resources
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
There are no PDFs or SCPs identified to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Archaeological resources include resources that
the Lead Agency determines meet at least one of the criteria listed in PRC Section 21082.2(g) (refer to
Section 4.3.2.2 above). An archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet any of these criteria
is a non-unique archaeological resource, and any impact on such resource is not considered significant
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4).
Impact Analysis
For the CIP pipeline projects, impacts to potential archaeological resources would only occur for those
projects that would involve excavation into native soils below the level of roadway fill materials. Some
pipeline projects may only require excavation into roadway fill material which would not disturb potential
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-12
November 2016
archaeological resources; however, the depth of fill along the CIP pipeline routes is unknown at this time.
In the absence of such data, it must be assumed that grading and excavation activities associated with all
of the CIP pipeline projects could have significant impacts to potential archaeological resources.
With the exception of P2233 (Res 640-3) ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading, trenching, excavation)
and equipment/material staging areas associated with the construction of CIP reservoirs under the 2015
WFMP Update would have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources that may be
present on or below the ground surface, particularly in areas that have not been previously developed.
According to a previous cultural resources investigation (Kyle Consulting 2004), as part of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for these facilities (HDR 2006), of the 10-acre parcel in which Res 640-3 would
be located, no cultural resources were identified by the literature review or record search. As such, no
further research regarding cultural resources at this site was recommended in the referenced MND.
Additionally, only ground-disturbing activities associated with the following CIP projects in reservoirs,
pump stations, and groundwater wells could have significant impacts to potential archaeological
resources: P2040 (Res-1655-1), P2393 (pump station), P2579 (pump station), P2174 (pump station 1090-
1), P2400 (pipeline), P2403 (pipeline), P2405 (pipeline), P2451 (desalination conveyance and disinfection
system), P2516 (pipeline), P2553 (replacement and utility relocation), R2129 (recycled water pipeline and
engine driven pump addition), R2130 (recycled water pipeline and pump station addition), R2080
(recycled water pipeline), R2082 (recycled water pipeline), R2083 (recycled water pipeline), R2085
(recycled water pipeline), R2128 (recycled water pipeline), R2037 (recycled water pipeline), R2038
(recycled water pipeline), R2042 (recycled water pipeline), R2043 (recycled water pipeline), R2079
(recycled water pipeline), R2126 (recycled water pipeline), R2131 (reservoir 680-2), R2132 (recycled water
pipeline), R2133 (recycled water pipeline), R2134 (recycled water pipeline), R2135 (recycled water
pipeline), R2136 (recycled water pipeline), and R2137 (recycled water pipeline).
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of the following measures would reduce impacts to potential archaeological resources to
a less than significant level. These are considered both mitigation and performance measures since the
same measures are required for both the near-term and long-term projects.
Cul-2A Prior to initiation of any CIP project work, a review of records search data, a search of the
Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands Files, and an appropriate-level field
survey shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine if any unrecorded
archaeological sites are present. If archaeological resources are found, if feasible, the
preferred course of action is that that archaeological resources be preserved in-situ.
When avoidance of impacts is not possible, site evaluations and possible data recovery
mitigation, as needed, shall be required for all resources. Any artifacts recovered during
excavation, other than cultural material subject to repatriation, shall be curated with its
associated records at a curation facility approved by OWD and a qualified archaeologist.
Excavation of deposits shall be coordinated with and monitored by local Native American
representatives. The results of the field survey shall be presented in an Archaeological
Resources Management – formatted report and a copy of the report with all associated
Department of Parks and Recreation site recordation forms be submitted to the South
Coastal Information Center within one month of report finalization.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-13
November 2016
Cul-2B During the design phase, available data shall be reviewed by a qualified archaeologist on
the depth of fill below existing roads in which pipelines would be installed. If such review
indicates that native soils would not be disturbed by pipeline trenching activities, then
cultural resources monitoring will not be required for those CIP projects, and this
determination by a qualified archaeologist shall be documented by OWD in accordance
with CEQA requirements. OWD will provide a copy of this CEQA documentation to the
SDCAS. If it is determined that native soils would be disturbed by project activities, then
a cultural resources monitoring program shall be implemented in accordance with
measures Cul-2C through Cul-2D.
Cul-2C Prior to grading of CIP projects, OWD shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor all
ground-disturbing activities in coordination with a Native American monitor (as
applicable). Prior to beginning any work that requires cultural resources monitoring:
i. A preconstruction meeting shall be held that includes the archaeologist, construction
supervisor and/or grading contractor, and other appropriate personnel to go over the
cultural resources monitoring program.
ii. The archaeologist shall (at that meeting or subsequently) submit to the OWD a copy
of the site/grading plan that identifies areas to be monitored.
iii. The archaeologist shall coordinate with the construction supervisor and OWD on the
construction schedule to identify when and where monitoring is to begin, including
the start date for monitoring.
iv. The archaeologist shall be present during grading/excavation and shall document
such activity on a standardized form. A record of monitoring activity shall be
submitted to OWD each month and at the end of monitoring.
Cul-2D In the event archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities,
the on-site construction supervisor shall be notified and shall redirect work away from
the location of the discovery to allow for preliminary evaluation of potentially significant
archaeological resources. The OWD shall consult with the archaeologist to consider
means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the archaeological site
boundaries, including minor modifications of project footprints, placement of protective
fill, establishment of a preservation easement, or other means. If development cannot
avoid ground disturbance within the archaeological site boundaries, then OWD shall
implement the measures listed below. The construction supervisor shall be notified by
the archaeologist when the discovered resources have been collected and removed from
the site, at which time the construction supervisor shall direct work to continue in the
location of the discovery.
i. Prepare a research design, resource evaluation plan and, if necessary, an
archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which
the site is significant. The significance of the discovered resources shall be determined
in consultation with the Native American representative, as appropriate. All
archaeological work shall be conducted in the presence of a Native American monitor.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-14
November 2016
ii. If, in the opinion of the qualified archaeologist and in light of the data available, the
significance of the site is such that data recovery cannot capture the values that
qualify the site for inclusion in the CRHR, then OWD shall reconsider project plans in
light of the high value of the resource, and implement more substantial project
modifications that would allow the site to be preserved intact, such as redesign,
placement of fill, or relocation or abandonment.
iii. Perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a report and file it with the SCIC, and
provide for the permanent curation of recovered resources, as follows:
a. The archaeologist shall ensure that all significant cultural resources collected are
cleaned, catalogued, and analyzed to identify function and chronology as they
relate to the history of the area; that faunal material is identified as to species;
that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate; and that a letter of
acceptance from the curation institution has been submitted to OWD.
b. Curation of artifacts shall be completed in consultation with the Native American
representative, as applicable.
4.3.3.3 Issue 3 – Human Remains
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following SCP
to reduce potential impacts to human remains:
Cul-SCP-1 The OWD will implement the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 which establish procedures to be followed if Native
American or other skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project,
including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial
procedures.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it would disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries. Section 15064.5(d) and (e) of the CEQA Guidelines assigns special importance to human
remains and specifies certain procedures when Native American remains are discovered. These
procedures are detailed under PRC Section 5097.98 (refer to Section 4.3.2.2 above).
Impact Analysis
Although unlikely, Native American human remains could be discovered during ground disturbance (e.g.,
grading, trenching, excavation) associated with construction of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP
Update, with the exception of P2233 (Res 640-3) (refer to Section 4.3.3.2 above for the rationale). If
human remains are encountered, then these finds would be addressed in accordance with California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98 which require the County Coroner be
notified immediately to determine the origin and disposition of the remains. If the human remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner would notify the NAHC and MLD who would complete the
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-15
November 2016
inspection within 48 hours and confer with OWD over reasonable options for treatment. Therefore,
implementation of Cul-SCP-1 would reduce potential impacts to Native American human remains
encountered during ground disturbance associated with construction of certain CIP projects under the
2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Cul-SCP-1 would reduce potential impacts to Native American human remains
encountered during ground disturbance associated with construction of certain CIP projects under the
2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.3.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
All CEQA checklist items related to cultural resources have been thoroughly discussed in this section of
the PEIR; no topics were left unaddressed.
4.3.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
City of Chula Vista. 2008. Brief History of Chula Vista. Accessed December 3, 2008 at
www.chulavistaca.gov/about/history.asp
HDR. 2004. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Water Resources Master Plan. June
2004.
HDR. 2006. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 640-1 & 640-2 Reservoirs, Otay Water District, Spring
Valley, California. February 2006.
PBS&J. 2008. Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan Update. October 2008.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 Cultural Resources
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.3-16
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 Energy
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.4-1
November 2016
4.4 Energy
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WRMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to energy; the potential energy use, efficiency, or lack thereof resulting from development
of CIP projects under the 2015 WRMP Update; and the project design features, standard construction
practices, and mitigation/performance measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts. Energy usage
by the construction and operation of CIP projects is also a consideration in assessing project impacts to
global climate change. For further discussion of this issue, please refer to Section 4.6 (Global Climate
Change) in this PEIR.
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
4.4.1.1 Existing Conditions
In 2008, a Carbon Footprint Assessment was prepared for the OWD, which provided a summary of data
from existing OWD facilities of average energy usage (IFC 2008). Electrical usage data at OWD facilities
was obtained from meter readings covering all electricity purchased from San Diego Gas & Electric
(SDG&E) and consumed within the OWD for the years of 2006 and 2007. Total annual electricity
consumption for OWD was 19,905,675 kilowatt-hours per year in 2006 and 22,859,609 kilowatt-hours per
year in 2007 (IFC 2008). The primary source of electricity consumption in the OWD is the operation of
pump stations. The average monthly electricity consumption of existing OWD pump stations is presented
in Table 4.4-1, below. The pump stations below vary both in size (firm capacity) and frequency of use.
Some pump stations are in operation more than others, depending on its location, the distance to the
customer base, and the overall demand of the local customer base. For example, a larger sized pump
station such as PS 980-1, may result in a lower average monthly electricity usage than a smaller pump
station (PS 850-2).
Table 4.4-1 Average Monthly Electricity Consumption of Existing
OWD Pump Stations
Existing Pump Stations Firm Capacity (gpm)
Average Monthly Electricity
Consumption (kWh)
PS 1090-1 280 1,696
PS 1655 620 3,657
PS 1485-1 860 11,936
PS 1200-1 1,000 10,595
PS 1004-2 1,000 15,330
PS 1296-1 3,300 58,258
PS 944-1 3,540 31,250
PS 832-1 5,200 82,431
PS 850-2 6,000 157,954
PS 980-1 8,000 96,386
PS 803-1 10,400 178,985
gpm = gallons per minute, kWh = kilowatt hours
Source: ICF 2008
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 Energy
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.4-2
November 2016
4.4.1.2 Existing Energy Setting
SDG&E services the project area, and is a regulated public utility company that provides energy service to
3.4 million people through 1.4 million electric meters and 870,000 natural gas meters in San Diego and
southern Orange counties (SDG&E 2015). The majority of the proposed pipeline alignment is currently
undeveloped. However, several detention facilities are located surrounding the northern terminus of the
project site and are currently provided energy service by SDG&E. Additionally, the Otay Mesa Energy
Center is located approximately 650 feet north of the proposed alignments in Paseo de la Fuente. The
Otay Mesa Energy Center is natural gas fueled power plant that provides SDG&E electricity. The plant has
a base load of 503 megawatts (MW) (Calpine 2015).
4.4.2 Regulatory Framework
4.4.2.1 Federal
There are no applicable federal regulations concerning energy consumption or operating parameters
applicable to the project.
4.4.2.2 State
California Energy Plan
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies
emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the
maintenance of a healthy economy. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the
transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel
supplies with the fewest environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a
number of strategies, including providing assistance to public agencies and fleet operators, encouraging
urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled, and accommodating pedestrian and bicycle access.
Executive Order S-13-08
On November 14, 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-13-08, the Climate
Adaptation and Sea Level Rise Planning Directive, which provides clear direction for how the state should
plan for future climate impacts. S-13-08 calls for the implementation of a number of actions to reduce the
vulnerability of California to climate change:
1) Initiate California's first statewide Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (CAS) that will assess the
state's expected climate change impacts, identify where California is most vulnerable and
recommend climate adaptation policies;
2) Request the National Academy of Science establish an expert panel to report on sea level rise
impacts in California in order to inform state planning and development efforts;
3) Issue interim guidance to state agencies for how to plan for sea level rise in designated coastal
and floodplain areas for new and existing projects; and
4) Initiate studies on critical infrastructure projects, and land use policies vulnerable to sea level rise.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 Energy
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.4-3
November 2016
The CAS is currently being developed by the California Resources Agency, in coordination with the
California EPA; the California Climate Action Team; the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency;
California Department of Public Health; and other key stakeholders. The CAS will synthesize the most up-
to-date information on expected climate change impacts to California for policy-makers and resource
managers, provide strategies to promote resiliency to these impacts, and develop implementation plans
for short and long term actions (California Climate Change Portal 2009). The public review draft CAS was
released on August 3, 2009 and a progress report was published in 2010.
California Code of Regulations Title 24
Energy Conservation Standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the
California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and most recently
revised in 2013 (24 CCR 6). Title 24 requires that building shells and building components be designed to
conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. This program has been partially
responsible for keeping California’s per capita energy use approximately constant over the past 30 years.
On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building
standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the
California Building Standards Code (24 CCR). Part 11 establishes voluntary standards that became
mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code, including planning and design for sustainable site
development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water
conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.
4.4.2.3 Local
The County of San Diego has implemented an Energy Management Program; however, the program is
related to municipal facilities and is not applicable to the project.
4.4.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.4.3.1 Issue 1 – Energy Consumption
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following PDFs
to reduce potential impacts to energy consumption.
Ene-PDF-1 CIP projects featuring electric pumps and motors will use high efficiency pumps and
motors.
Ene-PDF-2 All outdoor (security) lighting installed at the above-ground CIP facilities (i.e., storage
reservoirs/tanks and pump stations) under the 2015 WFMP Update will use energy-
efficient light emitting diodes, with motion sensor lighting controls to limit usage. Lighting
adjacent to native vegetation communities will be of low illuminations, shielded, and
directed downwards and away from these areas to avoid potential effects to nocturnal
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 Energy
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.4-4
November 2016
wildlife from increased predation that would occur from “spill-over” of nighttime light
levels into the adjacent habitats.
Ene-PDF-3 The OWD will conduct annual pump efficiency tests at each CIP project featuring a pump
and correct any decreases in efficiency through the repair or replacement of appropriate
pump components.
Ene-PDF-4 The OWD will employ soft starts and stops to all CIP project pumps and motors to reduce
total electricity consumption during operation of pumps and motors.
Standards of Significance
Based on Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, and CEQA
Appendix F: Energy Conservation implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update could have a significant
impact associated with energy conservation if it would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy.
Impact Analysis
Construction
Construction of the CIP projects would result in the consumption of fuel associated with the operation of
construction equipment. Due to a number of unknown factors including the specific site conditions, the
horsepower of the engine, the load factor of each machine, and the number of days each piece of
equipment would be used, it is not possible to determine the precise total fuel consumption that would
occur during construction at each CIP project site at this time. However, there are no unusual project site
characteristics within OWD that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less
energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the region and the state.
Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the CIP projects would not
be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.
Operation
Transportation Energy Demand. Traffic generated by the CIP projects is discussed in Section 4.12
(Transportation/Traffic). As addressed in this section, operation of CIP projects proposed under the 2015
WFMP Update would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The maintenance for most
of the CIP projects may require approximately one visit per day. CIP projects located within the Regulatory
potable water operating system (see Figure 3-2) may require as many as 5-10 trips per day. Vehicular trips
associated with maintenance of the CIP projects would be minimal.
Electricity Demand. Of the proposed CIP projects, the only projects that would require energy to operate
would be pump station projects (for standard operation as well as emergency generators). Pipeline projects
and storage projects, once constructed, would not require the use of electricity, emergency generators, or any
other type of fuel-consuming operating equipment.
None of the CIP projects would require space heating or landscape equipment.
The 2015 WFMP Update proposes construction of four new pump stations within Phase IIIA. The 2015
WFMP Update proposes rehabilitation, replacement or expansion of another 11 pump station. In addition,
recycled water facility project CIP R2129 would upgrade the existing PS 680-1 pump station. CIP R2130
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 Energy
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.4-5
November 2016
would upgrade the pump station at the 944-1 pump station. Implementation of Ene-PDF-1 though Ene-
PDF-4 would reduce the electricity required at the proposed pump stations. Measures Ene-PDF-1 and Ene-
PDF-2 ensure that the new mechanical components within the proposed pump stations are more energy
efficient than older mechanical equipment in existing pump stations. Measures Ene-PDF-3 and Ene-PDF-
4 insure that the CIP projects operate efficiently. Therefore, the proposed pump stations would not result
in the wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Construction of the CIP projects proposed by the 2015 WFMP Update would result in the consumption of
energy; however, this consumption would be similar to other projects in the region and not be wasteful,
inefficient or unnecessary. Implementation of Ene-PDF-1, Ene-PDF-2, Ene-PDF-3, and Ene-PDF-4 would
ensure that the operation of the CIP projects within the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in the
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.4.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
All issues associated with energy usage within CEQA Guidelines Appendix F: Energy Conservation have
been discussed in this section of the PEIR.
4.4.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
California Climate Change Portal. 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy Overview. Accessed
November 18 2013 at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/index.html
Calpine. 2015. Otay Mesa Energy Center website. Accessed April 2, 2015 at
http://www.calpine.com/power/plant.asp?plant=247
ICF Jones and Stokes (ICF). 2008. Otay Water District Carbon Footprint Assessment. November 2008.
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). 2015. Company Facts website. Accessed April 2, 2015 at
http://www.sdge.com/
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 Energy
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.4-6
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-1
November 2016
4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to geology and soils, seismicity, and paleontological sensitivity; the potential physical
environmental effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) related to these issues resulting from
development of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update; and the project design features, standard
construction practices, and mitigation/performance measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts.
4.5.1 Environmental Setting
4.5.1.1 Geology
The planning area for the 2015 WFMP Update is situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province.
The province spans approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin in the
north to the southern tip of Baja California. The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100
miles and is bounded by the Colorado Desert in the east and the coastal plain in the west.
A geologic formation is a body of crustal rock identified by its lithic characteristics (e.g., grain size, texture,
color, mineral content, fossil content) and stratigraphic position. Table 4.5-1 relates the epochal time
periods associated with the geologic formations described in this section. Geologic formations known to
underlie the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province include:
■ Sedimentary rock (sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate), including the Pauba Formation and
the Temecula Arkose, that have filled the Warner Basin with up to 1,000 feet of upper Pliocene
and lower to upper Pleistocene sediments;
■ Table Mountain Gravels; and
■ Jurassic metasedimentary rocks mapped as the Santiago Peak Volcanics.
Other geologic formations from the middle Eocene to early Pleistocene periods that are within the
planning area include the Mission Valley, Sweetwater, Otay, San Diego, and Linda Vista formations. The
planning area also contains geologic formations from the Quaternary period, including alluvial deposits,
landslides, varieties of topsoil, and river terrace deposits, which only occur along the Sweetwater and
Otay river valleys (Figure 4.5-1).
4.5.1.2 Soils and Related Hazards
The planning area is underlain by the following soil types: Cieneba-Fallbrook (very rocky), Diablo-
Altamont, Diablo-Flores, Diablo-Linne, Eschequer-San Miguel (rocky), Fallbrook-Vista (rocky), Huerhuero-
Stockpen, Las Posas (stony), Redding-Olivenhain, and Rockland. Table 4.5-2 lists some of the relevant
characteristics of the aforementioned soils and their corresponding slope ranges.
!(
#0")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577
P2578
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
pKm
gr
gr gr
gr
gr
gr grgrgr gr
gr
gr
gr
gr
Kv
Kv
Kv
Kv
Kv
Kv
Kv
Kv
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qa QaQa
Qa
Qa
QaQa QaQa
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qa
QaQa
QoaQoaQoaQoaQoaQoa
Qss
Qss
Qss
Qa
Qa
Qa
Qvol
Qvol
Qvol
QvolQvol
Qvol
Qvol Qvol Qvol
Qvol QvolQvolQvolQvol
QvolQvolQvolQvolQvol QvolQvolQvolQvolQvol
Qvol QvolQvolQvol Qvol
Qvol
Qvol
Qvol
Qvol
Qvot Qvot
Qvot
QvotQvot
Qvot
Qvot
Qvot
Qvot
QvotQvot
Qvot
Qa
Qa
Qa Qa
QaQa
Qa
Qa
Qa
Tss
TssTss
Tss
Tss
Tss
Tss
Tss
Tss
TssTssTss
Tss
Tss Tss
Tss
Tss
Tss Tss
Tss
gb gb
gb gb
gb
gb
gbgb
gb gb
gb gbgbgbgb
gb
gb gbgbgb
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
Geologic FormationsQa - Holocene to Pleistocene Alluvial DepositsQvot - Pleistocene Terrace DepositsQss - Pleistocene to Pliocene Sandstones and ConglomeratesQvol - Pleistocene to Pliocene Lacustrine, Playa, and Estuarine (Paralic) DepositsQoa - Pleistocene to Oligocene Alluvial Valley DepositsTss - Pleistocene to Eocene Coarse-grained formations of sedimentary originKv - Cretaceous formations of volcanic origingb - Early Cretaceous Gabbrogr - Early Cretaceous Granitic and other intrusive crystalline rockspKm - Cretaceous and Pre-Cretaceous metasediments and metavolcanics
Geologic Formations within the Planning AreaFigure 4.5-1
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.5-1 Geologic Formations.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-3
November 2016
Table 4.5-1 Time Period Definitions for Epochs/Geologic Formations
Epoch Time Relevant to Present
Quaternary Period
Holocene 10,000 years ago to the present
Pleistocene 1.8 million-10,000 years ago
Tertiary Period
Pliocene 5-1.8 million years ago
Miocene 24-5 million years ago
Oligocene 34-24 million years ago
Eocene 55-34 million years ago
Paleocene 65-55 million years ago
Mesozoic Era
Cretaceous Period 144-65 million years ago
Jurassic Period 206-144 million years ago
Triassic Period 248-206 million years ago
Source: SDNHM 2015
Table 4.5-2 Soil Associations, Slope Ranges, and Characteristics
Soil Association Slope Range Characteristics
Cieneba-Fallbrook, very rocky 9-75%
Excessively drained to well-drained coarse sandy loams and sandy
loams that have sandy clay loam subsoil over decomposed
granodiorite.
Diablo-Altamont 15% Well-drained clays.
Diablo-Flores 9-30% Well-drained clays and moderately well-drained loamy fine sands
that have subsoils of sandy clay.
Diablo-Linne 15-50% Well-drained clays and loams.
Eschequer-San Miguel, rocky 30-75% Well-drained silt loams and stony loams over metavolcanic rock.
Fallbrook-Vista, rocky 9-30%
Well-drained sandy loams and coarse sandy loams that have a
subsoil of sandy clay loam and sandy loam over decomposed
granodiorite.
Huerhuero-Stockpen 0-9% Moderately well-drained loams to gravelly clay loams that have a
subsoil of clay or gravelly clay.
Las Posas, stony 9-65% Well-drained stony fine sandy loams that have clay subsoils over
decomposed gabbro.
Redding-Olivenhain 9-50% Well-drained gravelly loams and cobbly loams that have a subsoil of
gravelly clay over a hardpan or cobbly alluvium.
Rockland N/A Dominantly exposed bedrock and very large boulders.
Source: PBS&J 2010
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils generally result from clay minerals that have the capacity to shrink or swell in response to
changes in moisture content. Figure 4.5-2 shows locations within the planning area that may contain
expansive soils. Coarse soils such as sandy loam and loamy sands found within the Redding-Olivenhain,
Fallbrook-Vista, Las Posas, Cienaba-Fallbrook, Diablo-Linne, and Diablo-Flores soil associations within the
planning area have a known potential for shrinking and swelling. Shrinking and swelling in soils can damage
foundations, concrete slabs, flatwork and pavement through differential compression or settlement,
tilting and cracking, which can pose a potential hazard to structures and humans. Expansive soils found
on slopes can cause slope failure.
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluencePotential Expansive Soils
Potential Expansive Soil AreasFigure 4.5-2
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.5-2 Expansive Soils.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-5
November 2016
Subsidence (Settlement)
Subsidence is the downward settling of surface materials caused by natural or artificial removal of
underlying support. Subsidence is a relatively slow process that may continue for several decades. Land
subsidence could occur from one or more of several causes including withdrawal of subterranean fluids
(oil, gas, or groundwater) or the application of water to moisture-deficient unconsolidated deposits. OWD
does not currently have any groundwater wells within the planning area.
Landslides
Most landslides occur when the weight of water-saturated soil and rock exceeds the strength of the
underlying material (known as overburden). Debris flow can also occur during landslides, which is caused
by high rainfall, steep slopes, loss of vegetation cover, and high overburden. Within San Diego County,
landslides have been known to occur within certain soils such as sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, and
claystone. These soil types are fine-grained materials that often turn into clay when saturated. Saturated
clays are most susceptible to causing landslides. Areas of steep topography within the local geologic
formations are prone to landslides, including the southern portion of the planning area, south of the Otay
River Valley, and in areas along the west side of Lower Otay Reservoir and to the north of Upper Otay
Reservoir (PBS&J 2010).
4.5.1.3 Seismic Hazards
The Peninsular Ranges Province is crossed by a series of sub-parallel faults and fault zones generally
trending northwest (Figure 4.5-3). Several of these faults are considered to be active. Active faults are
defined as those that have exhibited evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years; potentially
active faults have exhibited evidence of ground displacement in the last 2,000,000 years. Within the
mainland region, major active faults in San Diego County include Elsinore, La Nacion, and Rose Canyon.
Within the ocean or nearby islands, active faults include Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and San
Clemente faults.
Figure 4.5-3 shows the two major fault zones within the vicinity of the planning area. The La Nacion fault
zone includes Late Quaternary and Holocene faults which transverse the western portion of the Central
System of the OWD service area. The Rose Canyon fault zone contains a series of Holocene and Historic
faults that lie west of the OWD service area beneath San Diego Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
Groundshaking and Surface Rupturing
Groundshaking as a result of earthquakes is a potential hazard throughout southern California, including
within the planning area. The intensity of groundshaking at any particular site and the relative potential
for damage from this hazard depends on the earthquake magnitude, distance from the source (epicenter),
and the site response characteristics (ground acceleration, predominant period, and duration of shaking).
Unlike damage from seismic groundshaking, which can occur at great distances from a fault, damage due
to surface rupturing is limited to the location of the fault-line break.
!(
#0")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
Aä
!"a$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Ag
%&s(
!"_$
!"^$
A²
L
a
N
a
c
i
o
n
F
a
u
l
t
Z
o
n
e
R
o
s
e
C
a
n
y
o
n
F
a
u
l
t
Z
o
n
e
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
SanDiegoBay
PacificOcean
P2584
P2437 P2577
P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceFaults by AgeHistoricHoloceneLate Quaternary
Mapped FaultsFigure 4.5-3
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: USGS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.5-3 Mapped Faults.mxd
I 0 1.5 30.75
Miles
1 in = 3 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-7
November 2016
Landslides
Earthquake-induced landslides are most likely to occur on steep slopes where groundshaking causes
bedrock and/or soils to slide, thus weakening, damaging, or collapsing foundations and buildings. The risk
for an earthquake-induced landslide can be determined by evaluating a site for evidence of a previous
landslide; evaluating local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions; and
determining if they would indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs when an area is subjected to strong seismic shaking, on-site soils are
cohesionless, and groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface. Under these conditions, a
seismic event could result in a rapid increase in water pressure, such that soil particles begin to move and
act as a liquid. This transformation from solid state to “liquid,” as a response to seismically induced
groundshaking, can cause structures supported on the soils to tilt or settle as the supporting capabilities
of the soils diminish. Water-saturated, clay-free sediments generally are expected to have a high
susceptibility to liquefaction.
The potential damaging effects of liquefaction include differential settlement, loss of ground support for
foundations, ground cracking, and heaving and cracking of structure slabs. Figure 4.5-4 below shows
locations within the planning area that may be susceptible to liquefaction.
4.5.1.4 Paleontology
Paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life
exclusive of humans. Fossil remains including bones, teeth, shells, leaves, and wood are found in the
geologic deposits (rock formations) within which they were originally buried. For the purposes of this PEIR,
paleontological resources include not only the actual fossil remains, but also the collecting localities and
the geologic formations containing those localities. The fossil content of a geologic formation may be
considered a lithic characteristic of that formation.
The paleontological resource sensitivity of a geologic formation is directly related to the scientific
significance of the fossils contained within; therefore, a formation that contains scientifically significant
fossils at other localities is considered to have paleontological resource sensitivity. A fossil is considered
to be scientifically significant if it provides important information on evolution and/or paleoecology,
demonstrates unusual or spectacular circumstances during the earth’s history, is uncommon or rare and
in danger of being depleted or destroyed, and/or is a vertebrate fossil.
The following levels of sensitivity are assigned to individual geologic formations, and these sensitivities as
they relate geographically to the planning area are shown in Figure 4.5-5.
High Sensitivity
High resource potential and high sensitivity are assigned to geologic formations known to contain
paleontological localities with rare, well preserved, critical fossil materials for stratigraphic or
paleoenvironmental interpretation, and fossils providing important information about the paleobiology
and evolutionary history (phylogeny) of animal and plant groups. In general, formations with high
resource potential are considered to have the highest potential to produce unique invertebrate fossil
assemblages or unique vertebrate fossil remains and are, therefore, highly sensitive.
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceArea of Potential Liquefaction
Potential Liquefaction AreasFigure 4.5-4
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.5-4 Liquifaction Areas.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
!(
#0")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluencePaleo SensitivityHighModerateLowMarginalZero
Paleontological Sensitivity MapFigure 4.5-5
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, San Diego Natural History Museum, 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.5-5 Paleontological Sensitivity.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-10
November 2016
Moderate Sensitivity
Moderate resource potential and moderate sensitivity are assigned to geologic formations known to
contain paleontological localities with poorly preserved, elsewhere common, or stratigraphically
uninformative fossil material. These geologic formations are judged to have a strong, but often unproven,
potential for producing unique fossil remains.
Low Sensitivity
Low resource potential and low sensitivity are assigned to geologic formations that, based on their
relatively young age and/or high-energy depositional history, are judged unlikely to produce unique fossil
remains. Low resource potential formations rarely produce fossil remains and are assigned a low
sensitivity rating for this reason. This is not to say that fossils will not be found, and when fossils are
discovered in such formations, the fossils are often scientifically significant precisely for the reason that
such formations rarely produce fossil remains.
Marginal Sensitivity
Marginal resource potential and marginal sensitivity are assigned to geologic formations that have a
limited probability for producing fossils from certain sediments at localized outcrops.
Zero Sensitivity
Zero resource potential is assigned to geologic formations that are composed entirely of volcanic or
igneous rock, such as basalt or granite, and therefore do not have any potential for producing fossil
remains. These formations are not sensitive.
Unknown Sensitivity
Formations from which there are currently no known paleontological resources but which have the
potential for producing such remains based on their sedimentary origin are assigned this classification.
Formations with unknown sensitivity include Quaternary alluvium.
4.5.2 Regulatory Framework
4.5.2.1 Federal
Federal Uniform Building Code
The federal Uniform Building Code (UBC) is a model building code that provides the basis for the California
Building Code (CBC). The UBC defines different regions of the U.S. and ranks them according to their
seismic hazard potential. There are four types of these regions, which include Seismic Zones 1 through 4,
with Zone 1 having the least seismic potential and Zone 4 having the highest seismic potential. The
planning area is located in Seismic Zone 4.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-11
November 2016
4.5.2.2 State
California Building Code
The CBC, based largely on the UBC, provides a minimum standard for building design. Chapter 23 of the
CBC contains specific requirements for seismic safety. Chapter 29 of the CBC regulates excavation,
foundations, and retaining walls. Chapter 33 of the CBC contains specific requirements pertaining to site
demolition, excavation, and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with
excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapter 70 of the CBC regulates grading
activities, including drainage and erosion control. Construction activities are subject to occupational safety
standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations (CCR Title 8 and in Section A33 of the CBC.
California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The California Legislature passed this law in 1972 for the purpose of prohibiting the development of
human-occupied structures within active fault areas, and to thereby mitigate the hazards associated with
earthquake fault rupture. Since none of the OWD facilities involve human habitation, the Alquist-Priolo
(AP) Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is not applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update.
California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Geologic Survey, formerly the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology (CDMG), provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards. Under CDMG’s Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act (1990), seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped to assist local governments in land
use planning. The intent of this publication is to protect the public from the effects of strong
groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In
addition, CDMG’s Special Publications 117, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California,” provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for
projects within designated zones of required investigations.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits
In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) administer the NPDES permit program. The NPDES permit system was established as part
of the CWA (discussed further in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this PEIR) to regulate both
point source discharges and nonpoint source discharges to surface waters of the U.S. The National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits (NPDES) program consists of characterizing receiving
water quality, identifying harmful constituents, targeting potential sources of pollutants, and
implementing a comprehensive storm water management program. Construction and industrial activities
are typically regulated under statewide general permits that are issued by the SWRCB. Additionally, the
SWRCB issues Waste Discharge Requirements that also serve as NPDES permits under the authority
delegated to the RWQCBs, under the CWA.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-12
November 2016
4.5.2.3 Local
County of San Diego Special Studies Zones
The AP Earthquake Fault Zoning Act allows local municipalities the option of setting policies that are more
stringent than those within the Act. Following this option, the County of San Diego established Special
Study Zones based on information from the CDMG. Using this information, the County produced maps of
late-Quaternary faults that have a high potential for seismic activity. Faults that the County has deemed
as existing within the Special Study Zones are considered to be active by the County unless a fault
investigation can prove otherwise. Projects within the county must be assessed to determine if they exist
within the Special Study Zones.
County of San Diego Grading Ordinance
Chapter 4 of the County Grading Ordinance (Section 87.101 et seq.) includes requirements for the
maximum slope allowed for cuts and fills, drainage terraces on cut or fill slopes exceeding 40 feet in height,
expansive soils for cuts and fills, minimum building setbacks from cut and fill slopes, and a soil engineer’s
report which includes specific approval of the grading as affected by geological factors.
Section 87.430 of the County Grading Ordinance provides for the requirement of a paleontological
monitor at the discretion of the County. In addition, the suspension of grading operations is required upon
the discovery of fossils greater than 12 inches in any dimension. The ordinance also requires notification
of the county official (i.e., Permit Compliance Coordinator). The ordinance gives the county official the
authority to determine the appropriate resource recovery operations, which shall be carried out prior to
the county official’s authorization to resume normal grading operations.
4.5.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.5.3.1 Issue 1 – Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following PDF
and SCP to reduce potential impacts associated with exposure to seismic-related hazards.
Geo-PDF-1 At the time of CIP project design, OWD will implement the relevant requirements of the
2013 UBC and CBC, as updated or amended, and the CDMG Special Publication 117.
Geo-SCP-1 Prior to construction of CIP projects, areas of liquefaction and/or landslides will be
identified as part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will
specifically address foundation and slope stability in liquefiable and landslide areas
proposed for construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical
investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the
following actions:
i. Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-13
November 2016
ii. For thinner deposits, remove loose, unconsolidated soils and replace with properly
compacted fill soils, or apply other design stabilization features (i.e., excavation of
overburden).
iii. For thicker deposits, implement applicable techniques such as dynamic compaction
(i.e., dropping heavy weights on the land surface), vibro-compaction (i.e., inserting a
vibratory device into the liquefiable sand), vibro-replacement (i.e., replacing sand by
drilling and then vibro-compacting backfill in the bore hole), or compaction piles (i.e.,
driving piles and densifying surrounding soil).
iv. Lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable soils.
v. Perform in-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics.
vi. For landslides, implement applicable techniques such as stabilization (i.e.,
construction of buttress fills, retaining walls, or other structural support to remediate
the potential for instability of cut slopes composed of landslide debris); remedial
grading and removal of landslide debris (e.g., over-excavation and recompaction); or
avoidance (e.g., structural setbacks).
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if people or CIP facilities would be exposed to substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
■ Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AP Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault;
■ Strong seismic groundshaking;
■ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
■ Landslides.
Impact Analysis
Fault Rupture
As shown in Figure 4.5-3, two CIP Phase II projects, P2554 (624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana
Avenue) and P2405 (624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road), would be located in the vicinity of
an active fault. Implementation of Geo-PDF-1 would ensure that this project would be designed in
accordance with UBC and CBC regulations regarding seismic hazards. Therefore, the project would be
equipped to withstand seismic events associated with active faults, and impacts attributed to fault rupture
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Groundshaking
Groundshaking from earthquakes along any of the regional active faults listed in Section 4.5.1.3 above, or
along any of the local active faults mapped within the planning area (Figure 4.5-3), could cause substantial
damage to proposed reservoirs, pump stations, pipelines, groundwater wells, and other CIP facilities
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-14
November 2016
under the 2015 WFMP Update. However, all CIP facilities would be designed to withstand damage from
seismic groundshaking to the extent feasible via compliance with the relevant requirements of the 2013
UBC and CBC, as updated or amended, and the CDMG Special Publication 117. Therefore, implementation
of Geo-PDF-1 would reduce the exposure of people and CIP facilities to substantial adverse effects of
strong seismic groundshaking to a less than significant level.
Ground Failure and Liquefaction
Based on the presence of liquefiable soils within a corridor along the Sweetwater River (Figure 4.5-4),
there is a potential for seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction to occur in this area that could
cause substantial damage to two Phase II pipeline projects, P2500 (Padre Dam - Otay Interconnection,
Dehesa Valley) and P2405 (624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road), and one Phase IIIB pump
station project, P2379 (832-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 4,200 to 6,800 gpm). Geo-SCP-1 would
require the completion of a geotechnical study prior to pipeline construction to adequately assess
geotechnical issues, including the liquefaction potential of unconsolidated alluvium underlying the
pipeline alignment. The geotechnical study would include sampling of subsurface earth materials; if such
materials are found to be susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction, then appropriate techniques to
minimize this potential would be designed and implemented, including but not limited to, removal or
treatment of liquefiable soils, drainage to lower the groundwater table to below the level of liquefiable
soils, in-situ densification of soils, or other alterations to the ground characteristics. Therefore,
implementation of Geo-SCP-1 would reduce the exposure of people and CIP facilities to substantial
adverse effects of seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction to a less than significant level.
Landslides
Based on the presence of relatively steep topography and the underlying geologic formations (Figure 4.5-
2), there is a potential for seismically induced landslides to cause substantial damage to the following CIP
projects under the 2015 WFMP Update: P2002 (1296-2 Proctor Valley Pump Station, 4,000 gpm), P2576
(980-5 Reservoir Village 14, 2.0 MG), and P2228 (870-2 Reservoir, 7.0 MG [previously 10 MG]) projects to
adequately assess geotechnical issues, including landslide potential. Such geotechnical study would
include sampling of subsurface earth materials. If such materials are found to be susceptible to seismically
induced landslides, then appropriate techniques to minimize this potential would be designed and
implemented, including but not limited to, remedial grading and removal of landslide debris, slope
stabilization in areas of proposed development, or construction of buttress fills to remediate the potential
for instability of cut slopes composed of landslide debris. Therefore, implementation of Geo-SCP-1 would
reduce the exposure of people and CIP facilities to substantial adverse effects of seismically induced
landslides to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Geo-PDF-1 and Geo-SCP-1 would reduce the exposure of people and CIP facilities to
substantial adverse effects associated with seismically induced groundshaking, ground failure,
liquefaction potential, and landslides to a less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-15
November 2016
4.5.3.2 Issue 2 – Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following SCPs
to reduce potential impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil, in addition to Geo-PDF-1 (refer
to Section 4.5.3.1 Issue 1 above).
Geo-SCP-2 Prior to construction of CIP projects, areas of severely erodable soils will be identified as
part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address
foundation and slope stability in erodable soils proposed for construction.
Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical investigations will be
implemented during construction, including but not limited to the following actions:
i. Minimize disturbance to existing vegetation and slopes.
ii. Construct drainage control devices (e.g., storm drains, brow ditches, subdrains, etc.)
to direct surface water runoff away from slopes and other graded areas.
iii. Provide temporary hydroseeding of cleared vegetation and graded slopes as soon as
possible following grading activities for areas that will remain in disturbed condition
(but will not be subject to further construction activities) for a period greater than
two weeks during the construction phase.
Geo-SCP-3 The construction bid documents for each CIP project will include either a 90 percent
Erosion Control Plan (for projects that would result in less than one acre of land
disturbance) or a 90 percent Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (for projects
that would result in one acre or greater of land disturbance). The Erosion Control Plan will
comply with the storm water regulations or ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction
within which the CIP project occurs, while the SWPPP will comply with the NPDES General
Construction Permit. These plans will be based on site-specific hydraulic and hydrologic
characteristics, and identify a range of BMPs to reduce impacts related to storm water
runoff, including sedimentation BMPs to control soil erosion. The construction contractor
will identify the specific storm water BMPs to be implemented during the construction
phase of a given CIP project, and will prepare and implement the final Erosion Control
Plan or SWPPP for that project. Typical BMPs to be implemented as part of the Erosion
Control Plan or SWPPP may include, but may not be limited to, the actions listed below.
For protection of finished graded areas and manufactured slopes, the construction
contractor will implement OWD Standard Specifications for Slope Protection and Erosion
Control (Section 02202).
i. Implement a “weather triggered” action plan during the rainy season involving
installation of enhanced erosion and sediment control measures prior to predicted
storm events (i.e., 40 percent or greater chance of rain).
ii. Use erosion control/stabilizing measures in cleared areas and on graded slopes of 3:1
(horizontal to vertical) gradient or steeper, such as geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls, soil
binders, or temporary hydroseeding.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-16
November 2016
iii. Use sediment controls to protect the site perimeter and prevent off-site sediment
transport, such as filtration devices (e.g., temporary inlet filters), silt fences, fiber
rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, check dams, street sweeping, energy
dissipaters, stabilized construction access points (e.g., temporary gravel or pavement)
and sediment stockpiles (e.g., silt fences and tarps), and properly fitted covers for
sediment transport vehicles.
iv. Divert runoff from uphill areas around disturbed areas of the construction site.
v. Protect storm drain inlets on-site or downstream of the construction site to eliminate
entry of sediment.
vi. Store BMP materials in on-site areas to provide “standby” capacity adequate to
provide complete protection of exposed areas and prevent off-site sediment
transport.
vii. Train personnel responsible for BMP installation and maintenance.
viii. Implement solid waste management efforts such as proper containment and disposal
of construction debris.
ix. Install permanent landscaping (or native vegetation in areas adjacent to natural
habitats) and irrigation as soon as feasible after final grading or construction.
x. Implement appropriate monitoring and maintenance efforts (e.g., prior to and after
storm events) to ensure proper BMP function and efficiency.
xi. Implement sampling/analysis, monitoring/reporting and post-construction
management programs per NPDES requirements.
xii. Implement additional BMPs as necessary (and as required by appropriate regulatory
agencies) to ensure adequate erosion and sediment control.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if CIP construction projects would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Impact Analysis
Impacts from Construction Activities
Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction and development of the CIP projects under the
2015 WFMP Update would expose soils that could be subject to erosion during rain events. In compliance
with 2013 UBC and CBC regulations, a geotechnical study would be performed prior to construction of CIP
projects to adequately assess geotechnical issues, including soil erosion potential. Such geotechnical study
would include sampling of subsurface earth materials. If such materials are found to be susceptible to soil
erosion, then appropriate techniques to minimize this potential would be designed and implemented,
including but not limited to, minimizing disturbance to existing vegetation and slopes, construction of
drainage control devices, and temporary hydroseeding of cleared vegetation and graded slopes. In
addition, all CIP construction contractors are required to implement either an Erosion Control Plan (for
projects that would result in less than one acre of land disturbance), in accordance with the storm water
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-17
November 2016
regulations or ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, or a SWPPP
(for any project greater than one acre in size), in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit.
These plans identify BMPs to reduce impacts related to storm water runoff, including sedimentation BMPs
to control soil erosion. Therefore, implementation of Geo-PDF-1, Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3 would reduce
impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil resulting from CIP construction projects to a less
than significant level.
Impacts Following Construction
Upon completion of construction, each CIP project site would be developed according to the 2015 WFMP
Update and relevant erosion control regulations (refer to Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3). Any stockpiled
topsoils would be reapplied to the surface of areas proposed for landscaping or revegetation; all residual
stockpiles of construction debris, unusable soils, rock, and other materials would be removed from the
project site. All permanent manufactured slopes, graded areas and exposed soils would be landscaped (or
revegetated in areas adjacent to natural habitats) and irrigated as soon as feasible after final grading or
construction to minimize the effects of wind and water erosion. All landscaped or revegetated areas would
be monitored and maintained (including irrigation systems) to ensure successful plant establishment.
Therefore, implementation of Geo-PDF-1, Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3 would reduce impacts associated
with soil erosion or loss of topsoil following construction of CIP projects to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Geo-PDF-1, Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3 would reduce impacts associated with soil
erosion or loss of topsoil to a less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.5.3.3 Issue 3 – Geologic/Soil Instability
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following SCPs
to reduce potential impacts associated with geologic/soil instability, in addition to Geo-SCP-1 (refer to
Section 4.5.3.1 above).
Geo-SCP-4 Prior to construction of CIP projects, areas of geologic/soil instability will be identified as
part of site-specific geotechnical investigations. The investigations will specifically address
foundation and slope stability within unstable geologic units/soils proposed for
construction. Recommendations made in conjunction with the geotechnical
investigations will be implemented during construction, including but not limited to the
following actions:
i. Perform site-specific settlement analyses in areas deemed appropriate by the
geotechnical engineer and evaluate the potential for groundwater-related
subsidence.
ii. Over-excavate unsuitable materials and replace them with engineered fill.
iii. To minimize or avoid lateral spreading of on-site soils, remove compressible soils and
replace them with properly compacted fill, perform compaction grouting or deep
dynamic compaction, or use stiffened conventional foundation systems.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-18
November 2016
iv. To minimize or avoid differential compression or settlement of on-site soils, manage
oversized material (i.e., rocks greater than 12 inches) via off-site disposal, placement
in non-structural fill, or crushing or pre-blasting to generate material less than 12
inches. Oversized material greater than 4 feet will not be used in fills, and will not be
placed within 10 feet of finished grade, within 10 feet of manufactured slope faces
(measured horizontally from the slope face), or within 3 feet of the deepest pipeline
or other utilities.
v. To minimize or avoid shrinking/swelling of on-site expansive soils, over-excavate for
deeper fills (at least five feet below finished grade).
vi. Locate foundations and larger pipelines outside of cut/fill transition zones and
landscaped irrigation zones.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if any CIP projects would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, causing on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, or liquefaction/collapse.
Impact Analysis
Landslides
Even in the absence of a seismic event, the San Diego and Otay geologic formations have been historically
susceptible to landslides throughout San Diego County, particularly where these formations occur on
steep slopes and when they have become saturated. As discussed in Section 4.5.3.1 above, there is a
potential for seismically induced landslides to cause substantial damage to the following CIP projects
under the 2015 WFMP Update: P2374 (PL 30-in, 870 Zone, 870-2 Reservoir to 870-1 Reservoir), P2002
(1296-2 Proctor Valley Pump Station, 4,000 gpm), P2576 (980-5 Reservoir Village 14, 2.0 MG), and P2228
(870-2 Reservoir, 7.0 MG [previously 10 MG]). However, implementation of Geo-SCP-1 would reduce
these impacts to a less than significant level.
Lateral Spreading
The sites of P2554 (624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue), P2235 (624-4 Emergency Reservoir,
30 MG (previously 40 MG), P2437 (624-4 Disinfection Facility), P2577 (980-2 Pump Station Expansion,
from 12,000 to 16,000 gpm), and P2578 (711-2 Pump Station [PS 711-1 replacement], from 10,000 to
14,000 gpm) are underlain by soils that have the potential for lateral spreading (Figure 4.5-2). Geo-SCP-1
and Geo-SCP-4 require the completion of a geotechnical study prior to construction of these CIP projects
to adequately assess geotechnical issues, including the potential for lateral spreading. Such geotechnical
study would include sampling of subsurface earth materials. If such materials are found to be susceptible
to lateral spreading, then appropriate techniques to minimize this potential would be designed and
implemented, including but not limited to, removal of compressible soils and replacement with properly
compacted fill, compaction grouting or deep dynamic compaction, use of stiffened conventional
foundation systems, management of oversized materials, or placement of foundations and larger
pipelines outside of cut/fill transition zones and landscaped irrigation zones. Therefore, implementation
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-19
November 2016
of Geo-SCP-1 and Geo-SCP-4 would reduce potential structural impacts to the CIP facilities associated with
lateral spreading to a less than significant level.
Subsidence
Construction of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update may require short-term dewatering operations
that necessitate groundwater-pumping within the OWD service area. Because land subsidence is a
relatively slow process that may continue for several decades, such short-term use of groundwater is not
expected to result in substantial subsidence effects locally. Therefore, short-term dewatering operations
associated with construction of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in significant
impacts associated with subsidence. Long-term operations associated with the Otay Mesa Lot 7
Groundwater Well System (P2484) would involve groundwater extraction, which can result in local
subsidence. Implementation of Geo-SCP-4 would evaluate the potential of subsidence associated with
these two projects and reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Liquefaction/Collapse
As discussed in Section 4.5.3.1 above, based on the presence of liquefiable soils within a corridor along
the Sweetwater River (Figure 4.5-4), there is a potential for seismic-related liquefaction and ground failure
to occur in this area that could cause substantial damage to two Phase II pipeline projects, P2500 (Padre
Dam - Otay Interconnection, Dehesa Valley) and P2405 (624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road),
and one Phase IIIB pump station project, P2379 (832-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 4,200 to 6,800 gpm).
However, implementation of Geo-SCP-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-4 would reduce impacts associated with geologic/soil
instability that could result in on or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction/
collapse to a less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.5.3.4 Issue 4 – Expansive Soils
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, Geo-SCP-4 (refer
to Section 4.5.3.3 above) to reduce potential impacts associated with expansive soils.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if any CIP projects would be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
UBC (1994 or most current edition), creating substantial risks to life or property.
Impact Analysis
The potential for expansive soils exists throughout large portions of the planning area (Figure 4.5-2). Geo-SCP-
1 and Geo-SCP-4 require the completion of a geotechnical study prior to construction of CIP projects
involving excavation activities to adequately assess geotechnical issues, including the potential for
expansive soils. The geotechnical study would include soil sampling of the final sub-grade areas and
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-20
November 2016
excavation sidewalls for their expansion index. For areas where the expansion index is found to be greater
than 20, appropriate techniques to minimize the shrink/swell potential would be designed and
implemented, including but not limited to, removal of expansive soils and replacement with properly
compacted fill, management of oversized materials, over-excavation for deeper fills, or placement of
foundations and larger pipelines outside of cut/fill transition zones and landscaped irrigation zones.
Therefore, implementation of Geo-SCP-1 and Geo-SCP-4 would reduce impacts associated with expansive
soils resulting from CIP construction projects to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Geo-SCP-1 and Geo-SCP-4 would reduce impacts associated with expansive soils to a
less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.5.3.5 Issue 5 – Paleontological Resources
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
There are no PDFs or SCPs identified to reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if CIP construction projects would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site. Because paleontological resources are typically buried and, therefore, not apparent until
revealed by excavation, significant impacts to paleontological resources are often determined based on
the geologic formations that would be disturbed and the potential for those geologic formations to
contain fossils.
Impact Analysis
As shown in Figure 4.5-5, portions of the planning area are underlain by geologic formations that have
potential to contain fossils. For the CIP pipelines, impacts to potential paleontological resources within
these geologic formations would only occur for those projects that would involve excavation into native
soils, below the level of roadway fill materials. Some pipeline projects may only require excavation into
roadway fill material, which would not disturb potential paleontological resources; however, the depth of
fill along the CIP pipeline routes is unknown at this time. In the absence of such data, it must be assumed
that grading and excavation activities associated with all of the CIP pipeline projects could have significant
impacts to potential paleontological resources. In addition, grading and excavation activities associated
with the following CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and related activities which would occur within the
“high,” “moderate,” “low,” and “marginal” paleontological sensitivity areas (Figure 4.5-5), could have
significant impacts to potential paleontological resources. Table 4.5-3 below lists projects that would
occur within established areas of paleontological sensitivity.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-21
November 2016
Table 4.5-3 CIPs Located in Paleontologically Sensitive Areas
CIP Description Paleontological Sensitivity Level
P2405 PL - 624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road High
P2431 Res - 980-4 Reservoir, 8.0 MG (previously 5 MG) High
P2437 Dis 624-4 Disinfection Facility High
P2482 Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well System High
P2554 624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue High
P2577 PS - 980-2 Pump Station Expansion, from 12,000 to 16,000 gpm High
P2578 PS - 711-2 Pump Station (PS 711-1 replacement),from 10,000 to 14,000 gpm High
P2392 PS -Lower Otay PS Replacement and Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm Moderate
P2579 PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Rehabilitation Moderate
P2379 PS - 832-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 4,200 to 6,800 gpm Low
P2500 Padre Dam - Otay Interconnection, Dehesa Valley Low
P2002 PS - 1296 -2 Proctor Valley Pump Station, 4,000 gpm Marginal
P2037 Res - 980-3 Reservoir, Resort Parcel, 4.0 MG (previously 13 MG) Marginal
P2142 Res - 1296-4 Reservoir, Village 14, 2.0 MG Marginal
P2228 Res - 870-2 Reservoir, 7.0 MG (previously 10 MG) Marginal
P2233 Res - 640-3 Emergency Reservoir, 10.0 MG Marginal
P2391 PS - Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm Marginal
P2393 PS - Pointe Hydro Pump Station Expansion, from 240 to 400 gpm Marginal
P2407 Dictionary Hill Fireflow Capacity pipeline Improvements Marginal
P2576 Res - 980-5 Reservoir, Village 14, 2.0 MG Marginal
P2584 Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions Marginal
P2585 PS - 1200-2 Pump Station, 1,000 gpm Marginal
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of the following measures would reduce impacts to potential paleontological resources
to a less than significant level. These are considered both mitigation and performance measures since the
same measures are required for both the near-term and long-term projects.
Geo-5A During the design phase for all CIP pipeline projects within the 2015 WFMP Update, available
data shall be reviewed on the depth of fill below existing roads in which pipelines would be
installed. If such review indicates that native soils would not be disturbed by pipeline
trenching activities, then paleontological monitoring will not be required for those CIP
projects, and this determination shall be documented by OWD in accordance with CEQA
requirements. If it is determined that native soils would be disturbed by pipeline trenching
activities, then a paleontological monitoring program shall be implemented in accordance
with measures Geo-5B through Geo-5D.
Geo-5B Prior to grading for CIP projects, OWD shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor all
ground-disturbing activities for all CIP projects described under Section 4.5.3.5 (Issue 5 Impact
Analysis) of the PEIR. A record of monitoring activity shall be submitted to OWD each month
and at the end of monitoring.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.5-22
November 2016
Geo-5C In the event fossils are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the on-site construction
supervisor shall be notified and shall redirect work away from the location of the discovery,
so that the fossils can be removed by the paleontologist for significance evaluations. The on-
site construction supervisor shall be notified by the paleontologist when the fossils have been
removed, at which time the construction supervisor shall direct work to continue in the
location of the fossil discovery.
Geo-5D For fossils removed from the construction site in accordance with measure Geo-5C that are
determined to be significant, the following measures shall be implemented:
i. The paleontologist shall ensure that all significant fossils collected are cleaned, identified,
catalogued, and permanently curated with an appropriate institution with a research
interest in the materials;
ii. The paleontologist shall ensure that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate, for
any significant fossil collected; and
iii. The paleontologist shall ensure that curation of fossils are completed in consultation with
OWD. A letter of acceptance from the curation institution shall be submitted to OWD.
4.5.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would the planning area 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 waste
water?
The 2015 WFMP Update would not involve the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater
disposal systems; therefore, no further evaluation is necessary.
4.5.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
PBS&J. 2010. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Water District 2009 Water
Resources Master Plan Update. January.
San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM). 2015. Geologic Time Scale. Accessed May 11, 2015 at
https://www.sdnhm.org/archive/exhibits/mystery/fg_timeline.html
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-1
November 2016
4.6 Global Climate Change
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to global climate change; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect,
and/or cumulative) related to these issues resulting from development of CIP projects under the 2015
WFMP Update; and the project design features, standard construction practices, and mitigation/
performance measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts.
4.6.1 Environmental Setting
4.6.1.1 Greenhouse Gases
California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines greenhouse gases (GHGs) to include the
following compounds: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, solid waste, trees and
wood products, and as a result of other chemical reactions such as through the manufacturing of cement.
Globally, the largest source of CO2 emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels in power plants, automobiles,
industrial facilities, and other similar sources. CH4 is emitted from a variety of both natural and human-
related sources, including fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and
waste management. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during
combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste (EPA 2016a). HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are synthetic, powerful GHGs
that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes, and the production of chlorodifluoromethane
(HCFC-22). Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not include any industrial processes, and
HCFC-22 has been mostly phased out of use in the U.S. (UNEP 2012); therefore, these GHGs are not
included in this analysis.
Individual GHGs have varying heat-trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes. Table 4.6-1 identifies
the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) and atmospheric lifetimes of basic GHGs. The CO2e is a consistent methodology
for comparing GHG emissions since it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. Each
GHG is compared to CO2 with respect to its ability to trap infrared radiation, its atmospheric lifetime, and
its chemical structure. For example, CH4 is a GHG that is 25 times more potent than CO2; therefore, one
metric ton (MT) of CH4 is equal to 25 MT CO2e.
Table 4.6-1 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes of Basic GHGs
GHG Formula
100-year global warming
potential(1) Atmospheric lifetime (yrs)
Carbon dioxide CO2 1 Variable
Methane CH4 25 12
Nitrous oxide N2O 298 114
(1) The warming effects over a 100-year time frame relative to other greenhouse gases.
Source: USEPA 2015
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-2
November 2016
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal),
solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions such as through the
manufacturing of cement. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels
such as coal, oil and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities and other sources. A number of
specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal
production and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is
also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the
biological carbon cycle. Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of
atmospheric CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by oceans and growing plants, also known as ‘sinks,’
and are emitted back into the atmosphere annually through natural processes also known as ‘sources.’
When in balance, the total carbon dioxide emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are
roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, human activities, such as the burning of oil,
coal and gas or deforestation, have increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (EPA 2016b). In 2013,
global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 43 percent higher than they were before the Industrial
Revolution (GCP 2014).
Methane
Methane (CH4) is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related
activities include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste
management. CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. CH4
emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in
municipal solid waste landfills. It is estimated that 60 percent of global CH4 emissions are related to
human-related activities. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites,
oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. CH4 emission levels
from a source can vary significantly from one country or region to another, depending on many factors
such as climate, industrial and agricultural production characteristics, energy types and usage, and waste
management practices. For example, temperature and moisture have a significant effect on the anaerobic
digestion process, which is one of the key biological processes that cause CH4 emissions in both human-
related and natural sources. Also, the implementation of technologies to capture and utilize CH4 from
sources such as landfills, coal mines, and manure management systems affects the emission levels from
these sources (USEPA 2016c).
Nitrous Oxide
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is produced by both natural and human-related sources. N2O is emitted during
agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Primary
human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage
treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic (fatty) acid production, and nitric acid
production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water,
particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. N2O emission levels from a source can vary
significantly from one country or region to another, depending on many factors such as industrial and
agricultural production characteristics, combustion technologies, waste management practices, and
climate. For example, heavy utilization of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in crop production typically results
in significantly more N2O emissions from agricultural soils than that occurring from less intensive, low-
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-3
November 2016
tillage techniques. Also, the presence or absence of control devices on combustion sources, such as
catalytic converters on automobiles, can have a significant effect on the level of N2O emissions from these
types of sources (USEPA 2016d).
4.6.1.2 Regional Adverse Effects of Climate Change
The San Diego Foundation’s Regional Focus 2050 Working Paper and Technical Assessment (Focus 2050)
explored what the San Diego region will be like in 2050 if current climate change trends continue (San
Diego Foundation 2008). The range of impacts presented in Focus 2050 are based on projections of
climate change on the San Diego region using three climate models and two emissions scenarios drawn
from those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A summary of the potential
adverse effects of Climate Change on the San Diego region, as projected in Focus 2050, is provided below.
Climate
From observations and model historical simulations, it appears that temperatures began to warm more
substantially in the 1970s. Some scientists attribute the change to the response to the effects of GHG
accumulation, which began to increase substantially during this time. All of the climate model simulations
exhibit warming across San Diego County, ranging from about 1.5 F to 4.5 F, with some differences in
the timing and geographic distribution of the changes. The models predict greater warming during the
summer than during winter, with surface air temperatures warming from 0.7 F to more than 2 F over
that found during winter. Temperature changes for areas along the coast would be moderated by the
influence of the Pacific Ocean, but interior areas, where the greatest population growth would occur,
would experience the greatest temperature increase.
The months when San Diego County experiences the most extreme warm temperatures, currently in July
and August, will likely begin in June and extend until September. It is estimated that the inland portion of
the county may have more than a threefold increase in hot days in 2050. Experts generally conclude that
rainfall will continue to vary widely from year to year, leaving San Diego County highly vulnerable to
drought.
Sea Level
If current climate change trends continue, rising sea levels will have a major impact on the San Diego
region’s environment and economy, particularly in coastal areas. When high tide occurs during a large
storm, particularly in El Niño winters, flooding will threaten homes, businesses, and hotels in low-lying
coastal communities such as Imperial Beach, Coronado, Mission Beach, La Jolla Shores, Del Mar, and
Oceanside. Flooding may also impact military, port and airport operations. High surf events will last for
more hours, with waves causing even greater coastal erosion and related damage. Rising sea levels will
wear away the foundations of sea bluffs, such as those found in Solana Beach, and significantly change
the county coastline. Sandy beaches and nearby wetlands serve as barriers to protect coastline
developments from high surf. As these areas shrink from more intense wave activity, there may be a
greater need for beach sand replenishment. More seawalls and breakwaters may need to be built to
defend homes and businesses from coastal flooding. In addition to being extremely costly, these
structures will destroy beaches and wetlands that do not have space to shift inland. Wetlands and
estuaries could be devastated, leaving beaches exposed to more pollutants that endanger human and
marine life.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-4
November 2016
Water Supply
SDCWA predicts an increase in water demand for San Diego County of around 20 percent, from 648,030
acre-feet per year (AFY) (the 2005-2010 average) to about 785,685 AFY in 2035. About 84 percent of this
demand is expected to come from imported sources (SDCWA 2010). By 2050, the expected demand will
increase to 915,000 AFY, which is an increase of 41 percent over the 2005-2010 period. By 2050, about 80
percent of the water supply is expected to be imported.
Drought years, which have historically increased water demand by another 7 percent, might occur as
much as 50 percent as often and be considerably drier. In drought years, parched soil soaks up more
surface water and groundwater, increasing the need for imported and other water supplies. At the same
time that the county demand for water would increase, climate change could shrink the Colorado River
flow (a major source of imported water for the county) by 20 percent or more. A decline in the Sierra
Nevada snowpack, aggravated by increased temperatures, could impact the water flow of many northern
California rivers which serve as primary sources of water to the California Aqueduct, a major source of
imported water for the county. San Diego’s water supply plans are likely to be severely challenged by
climate change. Even with plans in place to conserve, recycle, and augment our available water, it is
estimated San Diego County could face an 18 percent shortfall in water supply by 2050 (San Diego
Foundation 2008).
Wildfires
Fire occurrence has steadily increased in southern California, in direct proportion to human population
growth as most ignitions are caused by human activities. Most fires start during the summer, when coastal
sage and chaparral vegetation have dried to a highly flammable state. Fires that start during the fall,
however, burn many more acres because flames are intensified and spread by hot, dry Santa Ana winds.
It is not entirely clear from climate change models how Santa Ana conditions will affect San Diego regional
fire regimes in the future. Some models predict a decrease in the frequency and intensity of Santa Ana
conditions while others predict an increase, particularly during the fire season. If Santa Ana conditions
increase significantly earlier in the fire season, this shift could increase the incidence of massive Santa Ana
fires, because the winds will begin gusting during the time of year when most fires start. More frequent
fires would threaten native plant species by not allowing sufficient recovery time before they burn again.
This would allow weedy, non-native species, which thrive in post-fire conditions, to multiply. Weedy
invaders dry out earlier in the year, catch fire more easily, and burn faster than native plants.
Additionally, if current trends continue, the San Diego region will experience a population increase, with
more development and human activities in backcountry areas over the coming decades. As a result of
climate change, we can expect higher spring temperatures, scorching summers, drier vegetation, and
longer fire seasons. A simultaneous occurrence of all of these factors will increase the likelihood of more
devastating firestorms similar to those that destroyed many homes and lives in the unincorporated county
during 2003 and 2007.
Ecosystems
San Diego County beaches, canyons, mountains and deserts support a vast variety of plants and animals,
some of which are found nowhere else on the planet. This biodiversity is already under stress from human
population growth and land use changes that have broken up and reduced species habitat into
fragmented areas. The impacts of climate change will add to the pressures on habitats and the species
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-5
November 2016
that live in the county. As a result, the locations where the temperature, moisture, and other
environmental conditions are suitable for a particular species will shift. Plant and animal species are
generally able to adapt to shifting habitats, but under existing trends, climate change would occur so
rapidly that ecological conditions may shift faster than species are able to follow. To survive, some animals
and plants will have to move up to 95 miles over the next century to find new habitat or they will face
extinction. Drought and unusually warm years have already led to growing insect populations, such as
bark beetles, which have attacked and killed drought-stressed trees in San Diego County. With warmer
weather, the county’s forests will lose even more trees. Ecological changes will cascade, as the loss of one
species will challenge the ability of other species up and down the same food chain to survive. Top
predators like coyotes may be lost if habitat patches become too small or isolated, and that can lead to
an increase in smaller predators that prey on native songbirds.
Public Health
Increased heat, air pollution, wildfires, and infectious disease will cause illness and death in San Diego
County, especially among the elderly, children, and the chronically ill. Californians experience the worst
air quality in the nation, and San Diego is currently out of compliance with the federal ozone standard. By
2050, more hot sunny days will increase ozone air pollution levels, which can exacerbate asthma and other
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Fire-related injuries and death are likely to increase as intense
wildfires occur more frequently. Wildfires can also be a significant contributor to air pollution. Wildfire
smoke contains numerous toxic and hazardous pollutants that are dangerous to breathe and can worsen
lung disease and other respiratory conditions.
Warmer temperatures year-round could lead to growing mosquito populations, increasing the occurrence
of West Nile Virus in the San Diego region. Hot weather could also bring tropical diseases such as malaria
and dengue fever to the region for the first time. In coastal waters, conditions are likely to favor more
frequent “red tides” or harmful algal blooms, which can harbor toxic bacteria and other diseases. In 2050,
with an aging population and more residents living in areas with extreme-heat conditions and poor air
quality, the San Diego region will face intensified public health concerns.
Energy Needs
If current climate change trends continue, warmer temperatures and a growing population will translate
into big challenges for the San Diego region’s energy supply by 2050. The main impact will be higher
demand for electricity as a result of the greater need for summer cooling, especially in inland areas where
both regional population growth and temperature increases will be highest. Hotter summers and more
frequent, longer and intense heat waves will increase peak demand for electricity, which could result in
blackouts and power outages without adequate planning.
4.6.1.3 Global, National, Statewide, Countywide, and OWD
GHG Inventories
In an effort to evaluate and reduce the potential adverse impact of global climate change, international,
state and local organizations have conducted GHG inventories to estimate their levels of GHG emissions
and removals. The following summarizes the results of these global, national, state and countywide GHG
inventories. In 2008, a carbon footprint assessment was prepared for OWD, using data from recent years
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-6
November 2016
to obtain average annual emissions of GHG (ICF 2008). This GHG inventory serves as the baseline for the
proposed project.
Global
Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010 were approximately 49,000 million metric tons (MMT)
CO2e, including ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources and emissions from land use
changes (i.e., deforestation, biomass decay). CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and industrial processes
accounts for 65 percent of the total emissions of 49,000 MMT of CO2e (which includes land use changes)
and all CO2 emissions are 77 percent of the total. CH4 emissions account for 16 percent and N2O emissions
for 6 percent of GHG (IPCC 2014).
The Global Carbon Project releases an annual update of the global carbon budget and trends. According
to the Carbon Budget and Trends 2014 update (GCP 2014), the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration
in 2013 was 395 parts per million (ppm), 43 percent above the concentration at the start of the Industrial
Revolution (about 277 ppm in 1750). The present concentration is the highest during the last 800,000
years. The annual growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 2.53±0.09 ppm in 2013, significantly
above the average growth rate of the past 10 years (2004-2013). For comparison, the average growth rate
was 1.5±0.1 ppm for the decade 1990-1999, and was 1.6±0.1 ppm for the decade 1980-1989.
United States
The EPA publication, Draft Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013, provides a
comprehensive emissions inventory of the nation’s primary anthropogenic sources and sinks of GHGs. In
2013, total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,673 MMT CO2e. Overall, total U.S. emissions had risen by
2.0 percent from 2012 to 2013. The increase from 2012 to 2013 was due to multiple factors including
increased emissions from electricity generation, an increase in miles traveled by on-road vehicles, an
increase in industrial production and emissions in multiple sectors, and year-to-year changes in the
prevailing weather (EPA 2015).
California
In 2013, California’s total GHG emissions were 459.28 MMT CO2e, which is a 0.3 percent decrease from
2012 and a 2.0 percent decrease from 2000 levels (ARB 2015a). During the 2000 to 2013 period, GHG
emissions per capita have decreased from a peak in 2001 of 14.0 tonnes per person to 12.0 tonnes per
person in 2013, which is a 14 percent decrease. Overall trends in the inventory also demonstrate that the
carbon intensity of California’s economy is declining, representing a 23 percent decline since the 2001
peak (ARB 2015b).
San Diego County
The University of San Diego School of Law Energy Policy Initiatives Center prepared a detailed regional
GHG inventory for San Diego County that considers the unique characteristics of the region in calculating
emissions. According to the San Diego County GHG Inventory (USDSL 2013), San Diego County GHG
emissions were 32 million MT CO2e in 2010, which represents a 9 percent increase from 1990 levels. Table
4.6-2 summarizes San Diego County GHG emissions by category. As shown in this table, on-road
transportation was the largest contributor to San Diego County GHG emissions, followed by electricity
and natural gas end uses.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-7
November 2016
Table 4.6-2 County of San Diego GHG Emissions by Category (2010)
Sector Total Emissions (MMT CO2e) Percent of Total Emissions
On-Road Transportation 14.4 43
Electricity 8.3 24
Natural Gas End Uses 2.9 9
Industrial Processes and Products 1.8 5
Civil Aviation 1.9 6
Water-Borne Navigation 0.1 <1
Off-Road Equipment and Vehicles 1.4 4
Rail 0.3 1
Waste 0.6 2
Other Fuels (Propane, Kerosene, Wood, etc.)/Other 1.6 4
Agriculture/Forestry/Land Use 0.4 1
Total 32 100
Note: Numbers may not total to 100 percent due to rounding
Source: Energy Policy Initiative Center, University of San Diego School of Law, 2013
Otay Water District
OWD completed an inventory of their GHG emissions, which calculated direct and indirect emissions of
the GHGs emitted by the OWD in the years 2006 and 2007 (ICF 2008). Sources of GHGs include direct
emissions produced on OWD property, including stationary combustion sources (boilers, heaters, and
emergency generators), mobile sources (OWD-owned vehicles), water reclamation, and refrigeration, and
indirect emissions from consumption of electricity. GHG emissions at the OWD are dominated by three
pollutants, including CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels, CH4, most of which is associated with the
water reclamation plant, and N2O, which is emitted in small amounts from combustion and water
reclamation processes. The GHG inventory found that OWD emits an average of 14,833 MT CO2e in GHG
per year when considering both direct and indirect emission sources (Table 4.6-3). Electricity usage
represents about half of the total (51 percent), followed by water reclamation (30 percent), stationary
sources (14 percent), and mobile sources (5 percent).
Table 4.6-3 Average Annual OWD GHG Emissions (2006-2007)
Source
Annual Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Indirect Sources
Electricity Usage 7,573 0.3 0.1 7,604
Direct Sources
Stationary 2,044 0.2 0.3 2,102
Mobile 753 0.01 0.01 756
Water Reclamation N/A 210 0.05 4,422
Total Direct 2,757 210 0.4 4,099
Total Indirect and Direct 10,330 210 0.4 14,883
Source: ICF 2008
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-8
November 2016
4.6.2 Regulatory Framework
4.6.2.1 Federal
EPA Endangerment Finding and Cause or Contribute Finding
In 2009, the Administrator of the EPA found in its Endangerment Finding that GHGs in the atmosphere
threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. The Administrator also found
that the combined emissions of these well‐mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
engines contribute to the GHG pollution that threatens public health and welfare. Although the
Endangerment Finding does not place requirements on industry, it is an important step in the EPA’s
process to develop regulations. This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed GHG
emission standards for light‐duty vehicles, which were finalized in May 2010. In the EPA’s Cause or
Contribute Finding the Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well‐mixed GHG from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution that threatens public
health and welfare.
4.6.2.2 State
Assembly Bill 32
In September 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB 32), the California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG in California. GHG as defined under AB 32
include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride. Under AB 32, California ARB has the primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions and
continues the California Climate Action Team (CCAT) to coordinate statewide efforts and promote
strategies that can be undertaken by many other California agencies. AB 32 requires the ARB to adopt
rules and regulations that would achieve greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to state-wide levels in 1990
by 2020.
In general, AB 32 directs the ARB to do the following:
■ Make publicly available a list of discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures that can
be implemented prior to the adoption of the statewide GHG limit and the measures required to
achieve compliance with the statewide limit;
■ Make publicly available a GHG inventory for the year 1990 and determine target levels for 2020;
■ On or before January 1, 2010, adopt regulations to implement the early action GHG emission
reduction measures;
■ On or before January 1, 2011, adopt quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable emission reduction
measures by regulation that will achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit by 2020, to become
operative on January 1, 2012, at the latest. The emission reduction measures may include direct
emission reduction measures, alternative compliance mechanisms, and potential monetary and
non-monetary incentives that reduce GHG emissions from any sources or categories of sources
that ARB finds necessary to achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit; and
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-9
November 2016
■ Monitor compliance with and enforce any emission reduction measure adopted pursuant to
AB 32.
Regarding the first two bullets, ARB has already made available a list of discrete early action GHG emission
reduction measures. ARB has also published a staff report titled California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Level and 2020 Emissions Limit that determined the statewide levels of GHG emissions in 1990. ARB
identified 427 million MT CO2e as the total statewide aggregated greenhouse gas 1990 emissions level
and 2020 emissions limit. Additionally in December 2008, the ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping
Plan, which outlines the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG limit. This scoping plan proposes a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve
the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and
enhance public health. The plan emphasizes a cap-and-trade program, but also includes the discrete early
actions.
The first update to the Scoping Plan was adopted in May 2014. The first update identifies opportunities
for GHG reductions using existing and new funding sources, defines ARB’s climate change priorities for
the next five years, and establishes the plan for meeting the long-term goals of Executive Order S-3-05.
The Update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the 2020 GHG emission reduction goals
defined in the initial Scoping Plan and evaluates GHG reduction strategies may be aligned with other state
priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. According to the
plan, California is on track to meet the 2020 GHG emission reduction goal.
Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order S-3-05, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005, calls for a reduction in GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and for an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. Executive
Order S-05-05 also mandates the preparation of biennial science assessment reports on climate change
impacts and adaptation options for California. The CCAT report to the Governor in 2006 contains
recommendations and strategies to help ensure the targets in Executive Order S-3-05 are met.1
The latest CCAT Biennial Report was released in 2010. It expands on the policy oriented 2006 assessment.
This report provides new information and scientific findings. The new information and details in the CCAT
Assessment Report include development of new climate and sea-level projections using new information
and tools that have become available, and evaluation of climate change within the context of broader
social changes such as land-use changes and demographic shifts (CCAT 2010). The action items in the draft
report focus on the preparation of the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy required by Executive Order
S-13-08.
Senate Bill 97
Senate Bill (SB) 97, enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to clearly establish that GHG emissions and
the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. It directs the California Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to develop draft CEQA Guidelines “for the mitigation of GHG emissions or
the effects of GHG emissions” by July 1, 2009 and directs the Resources Agency to certify and adopt the
CEQA Guidelines by January 1, 2010. As directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted
1 State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor
Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, March 2006.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-10
November 2016
Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions in 2009. In 2010, the Office of Administrative Law
approved the Amendments, which became effective that same year.
Senate Bill 375
SB 375 provides for a new planning process that coordinates land use planning, regional transportation
plans (RTPs), and funding priorities to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32.
SB 375 requires RTPs developed by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to incorporate a
sustainable communities strategy (SCS) in their plans. The goal of the SCS is to reduce regional vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) through land use planning and consequent transportation patterns. SB 375 also
includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects, such as transit-oriented
development.
Senate Bill 350
SB 350 builds upon existing standards by increasing the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by
2030 and increasing energy efficiency in buildings by 50 percent by 2030. Existing law establishes the
California Renewables Portfolio Standards Program, which is codified in the Public Utilities Act, with the
target to increase the amount of electricity generated per year from eligible renewable energy resources
to an amount that equals at least 33 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers per year by
December 31, 2020. SB 350 increases this target to 50 percent by December 31, 2030.
4.6.2.3 Local
San Diego Association of Governments
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the council of governments and transportation
planning agency for San Diego County and the 18 cities located within its territory. SANDAG is responsible
for cooperative regional planning and furthering an efficient multi-modal transportation system
countywide. As the MPO and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), SANDAG supports freeway
construction projects, regional and local road improvements, train and bus transportation, railroad
crossings, call boxes, ridesharing, congestion management efforts and long-term planning studies.
Per SB 375, ARB set the following regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for SANDAG:
■ 7 percent reduction from the 2005 per capita amount by 2020
■ 13 percent reduction from the 2005 per capita amount by 2035
SANDAG adopted the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) on October 9, 2015. This
Regional Plan is the most recent regional transportation plan for the project area; it integrates the
Regional Transportation Plan, the Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Regional Comprehensive
Plan into one document. The Regional Plan identifies how greenhouse gas emissions from passenger
vehicles are projected to reach 15 percent by 2020 and 21 percent by 2035. subsequently adopted the
2050 RTP/SCS to help California meet its climate goals and the requirements of SB 375. The 2050 RTP/SCS
demonstrates a reduction in per capita GHG emissions of 14 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-11
November 2016
4.6.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.6.3.1 Issue 1 – Generation of Greenhouse Gases Emissions
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update, would include, but would not be limited to, the following SCP
to reduce potential impacts associated with the generations of GHGs.
Air-SCP-3 During project construction activities, the CIP Project Construction Manager will supervise
the following BMPs to reduce emissions associated with diesel equipment:
i. Properly operate and maintain all diesel-powered vehicles and equipment.
ii. Retrofit diesel-powered equipment with “after-treatment” products (e.g., diesel
oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters).
iii. Use electric or natural gas-powered construction equipment in lieu of gasoline or
diesel-powered engines.
iv. Turn off all diesel-powered vehicles and gasoline-powered equipment when not in
use for more than five minutes.
v. Support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
vi. Encourage the use of locally available building materials, such as concrete, stucco,
and interior finishes.
vii. Use light-colored or a high-albedo (reflectivity) concrete and asphalt paving materials
with a Solar Reflectance Index of 29 or higher.
viii. Establish a construction management plan with the local waste hauler that diverts a
minimum of 50% of construction, demolition, and site clearing waste.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant adverse impact if it would result in the generation of GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the environment.
Note that the CEQA Guidelines do not quantify the amount of GHG emissions that would constitute a
significant impact on the environment. Instead, they leave the determination of the significance of GHG
emissions up to the lead agency, and authorize the lead agency to consider thresholds of significance
previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts (CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15064.4(a) and 15064.7(c).)
Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) states, "[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead
agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public
agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds
is supported by substantial evidence."
OWD utilizes the thresholds of significance adopted by the County of San Diego in November 2013 to
determine whether the GHG emissions from a project may have a significant impact on the environment.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-12
November 2016
The County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance for Climate Change are based on regional data
including the incorporated cities and therefore may be used by lead agencies in the region other than the
County of San Diego. The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure that new development in San Diego
County achieves its fair share of emissions reductions needed to meet the statewide AB 32 mandate
(County 2012).
The County’s guidelines establish a screening level threshold for annual emissions of 2,500 MT CO2e.
Projects that would emit less than 2,500 MT CO2e are considered to have insignificant emissions and
would not affect the region’s ability to meet reduction goals. This screening level applies separately to
both construction and operation. Therefore, projects that result in emissions that are below this screening
level would not result in significant GHG emissions and no further analysis is required.
Impact Analysis
Construction Emissions
Construction of CIP projects proposed under the 2015 WFMP Update would result in temporary emissions
of GHGs from the operation of construction equipment and from worker and building supply vendor
vehicles. A full list of the CIP projects are listed in Tables 3-1 through 3-4 of Chapter 3 (Project Description).
Equipment that would be associated with construction of the proposed CIP projects would likely include
site preparation, trenching, grading, and paving activities. These activities may include the use of
excavators, industrial saws, pavers, rollers, dozers, graders, tractors, and scrapers. At this time, many of
the CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update are still in the design phase, and as such, information
regarding the number and type of construction equipment required and the duration of construction
activities is still unknown. The construction emissions inventory cannot be reasonably quantified at this
time. The construction of CIP projects proposed under the 2015 WFMP Update may result in construction
emissions above the annual 2,500 MT CO2e county threshold and impacts may be significant.
Operational Emissions
Operational GHG emissions from the CIP projects would include indirect emissions from electricity usage,
and direct emissions from mobile (vehicle trips associated with project maintenance), stationary sources
(fuel combustion from emergency generators). Of the proposed CIP projects, the only projects that may
generate stationary operational GHG emissions would be pump stations. It is assumed that pipeline
projects, groundwater wells, and storage projects, once constructed, would not require substantial
demands of electricity, or require the use of emergency generators, or any other fuel-consuming
operating equipment. A list of the pump station projects are shown in Table 3-2 (Chapter 3, Project
Description) of this PEIR.
The 2015 WFMP Update proposes construction of twelve new pump stations: two within Phase II, six within
Phase IIIA, and four within Phase IIIB. Mobile sources of GHG emissions for the CIP Projects would be
primarily associated with vehicular trips by employees. However, operation of CIP projects proposed
under the 2015 WFMP Update would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The only
source of stationary GHG emissions would be from diesel-fueled standby emergency generators. Standby
generators are not used frequently or for extended durations, and are only tested once per month for a
period of less than one hour. GHG emissions from mobile and stationary sources would be marginal. The
largest source of GHG emissions would be indirect GHG emissions resulting from electricity usage to
power the pump stations. Due to state legislation such as SB 350, electricity will continue to become
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-13
November 2016
increasingly efficient as the California Renewables Portfolio Standards Program increases the electricity
generated by renewable energy. Indirect GHG emissions from electricity usage to power pump stations
would be unlikely to exceed the 2,500 MT CO2e county threshold and would likely decrease over time. As
such, potential impacts due to the operational GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Construction GHG emissions of CIP projects proposed under the 2015 WFMP Update may result in
construction emissions above the 2,500 MT CO2e county threshold. The construction emissions can be
mitigated below the threshold by emplacing an annual cap on construction equipment activity.
In order to determine the magnitude of construction activity that would exceed the 2,500 MT CO2e county
threshold, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod, version 2013.2.2) was used to estimate
greenhouse gas emissions for construction activity. The CalEEMod 2013.2.2 model uses OFFROAD2011
for construction equipment. For the purposes of analysis, the land use assumed in the model was
100 acres of user-defined industrial. Emissions were estimated for the year 2017 to represent an annual
GHG construction inventory. Site preparation, trenching, grading, and paving activities were assumed.
Construction equipment assumptions are shown below in Table 4.6-4.
Table 4.6-4 CalEEMod Construction Activity Assumptions
Equipment Type
Number of
Equipment Hours/Day
Total Days of
Use Horsepower
Annual
Horsepower-Hour
Site Preparation Activity
Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8 217 255 1,770,720
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 217 97 673,568
Trenching Activity
Concrete/Industrial Saws 3 8 260 81 505,440
Excavators 3 8 260 162 1,010,880
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 260 255 1,591,200
Grading Activity
Excavators 2 8 260 162 673,920
Graders 2 8 260 170 723,840
Scrapers 2 8 260 361 1,501,760
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 260 255 1,060,800
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 260 97 403,520
Paving Activity
Pavers 2 8 260 125 520,000
Paving Equipment 2 8 260 130 540,800
Rollers 2 8 260 80 332,800
Total 11,309,248
Source: CalEEMod 2013.2.2.
The annual GHG emissions from the construction activity listed above would result in approximately
2,499 MT CO2e, which is just below the threshold. In other words, a construction scenario of
approximately 11,300,000 annual horsepower-hours would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-14
November 2016
If the construction of CIP projects proposed under the 2015 WFMP Update would have equal or reduced
construction activity as compared to the analyzed scenario, the construction GHG emissions would be
below the county significance threshold and potential impacts would be less than significant with the
applied mitigation.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts from construction
GHG emissions to less than significant.
GHG-1 Otay Water District will prepare annual construction activity estimates prior to undertaking
the first construction activity of any year. The annual construction estimate shall demonstrate
that the annual construction equipment use will be less than or equal to the activity shown in
Table 4.6-4 of this PEIR.
Operational GHG emissions would be unlikely to exceed the 2,500 MT CO2e county threshold and
potential impacts would be less than significant; therefore, no mitigation is required for operational
activities.
4.6.3.2 Issue 2 – Conflicts with Applicable Plan, Policy, or
Regulation
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
The PDFs/SCPs for Issue 1, listed above in Section 4.6.3.1, would apply to Issue 2 as well.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant adverse impact if it would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs.
The applicable policy adopted for the purposed of reducing GHG emissions is AB 32. The purpose of the
County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance for Climate Change is to ensure that new development
in San Diego County achieves its fair share of emissions reductions needed to meet the statewide AB 32
mandate. Therefore, a project that will result in a less than significant impact under the county threshold
will not conflict with AB 32.
Impact Analysis
As demonstrated under Section 4.6.3.1 (Issue 1), construction of the 2015 WFMP Update CIP projects may
exceed the county threshold without mitigation. However, operational GHG emissions are unlikely to
exceed the CEQA screening level threshold of 2,500 MT CO2e. Therefore, this impact will be potentially
significant.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would mitigate construction GHG emissions to less than significant levels.
Mitigation for operational activities is not required.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-15
November 2016
4.6.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Construction of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update may have a significant impact on the
environment. Mitigation measures GHG-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Operation
of the CIP projects may result in less than significant impacts and no mitigation is required.
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Construction of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update may conflict with AB 32. Mitigation measures
GHG-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels according to the county thresholds. Operation
of the CIP projects may result in less than significant impacts and would not conflict with AB 32, per the
county thresholds.
4.6.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015a. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2013 – by
Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. April 24, 2015.
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015b. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000-2013:
Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. June 16, 2015.
California Climate Action Team (CCAT). 2010. California Action Team Biennial Report. April.
County of San Diego, Land Use and Environment Group (County). 2012. Draft County of San Diego
Guidelines for Determining Significance Climate Change. June 20. Accessed April 2016 at
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/environmental-
services/pdf/sustainable/signifianceclimate.pdf
Global Carbon Project (GCP). 2014. Carbon Budget 2013 - Highlights. September 21, 2014. Accessed
September 22, 2015 at http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/14/hl-full.htm
ICF Jones and Stokes (ICF). 2008. Otay Water District Carbon Footprint Assessment. November 2008.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of the Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer
(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
San Diego Foundation. 2008. The San Diego Foundation Regional Focus 2050 Study: Working Papers for
the 2008 Climate Change Impacts Assessment, Second Biennial Science Report to the California
Climate Action Team. San Diego, California. Access April 2016 at
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/870746sr
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.6 Global Climate Change
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.6-16
November 2016
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2013. April 15, 2015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016b. Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Carbon Dioxide
Emissions. Accessed April 12, 2016 at
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016c. Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Methane
Emissions. Accessed April 12, 2016 at
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016d. Overview of Greenhouse Gases: Nitrous Oxide
Emissions. Accessed April 12, 2016 at
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016a. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Accessed April
12, 2016 at https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html
United Nations Environment Programme. 2012. Handbook for the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer, Ninth Edition.
University of San Diego School of Law (USDSL). 2013. San Diego County Updated Greenhouse Gas
Inventory, An Analysis of Regional Emission and Strategies to Achieve AB 32 Targets. March
2013.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-1
November 2016
4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to hydrology and water quality; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect,
and/or cumulative) related to these issues resulting from development of CIP projects under the 2015
WFMP Update; and the project design features, standard construction practices, and mitigation/
performance measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts.
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
4.7.1.1 Hydrology
The majority of the planning area is located within the following three watersheds (also known as
hydrologic units): Tijuana, Otay, and Sweetwater (Figure 4.7-1). The San Diego Hydrologic Unit traverses
the northernmost corner of the planning area. These hydrologic units are located within the San Diego
Region Hydrologic Basin, and with the exception of the Otay Hydrologic Unit, are bound by the Pacific
Ocean on the west and the Anza Borrego Hydrologic Unit on the east. A description of the hydrologic units
encompassing the planning area follows.
Tijuana Hydrologic Unit
The southernmost portion of the planning area, including the majority of the Otay Mesa System, is within
the Tijuana Hydrologic Unit (Figure 4.7-1). In its entirety, this hydrologic unit covers approximately 470
square miles, with most of this area in eastern San Diego County. It is further divided into eight hydrologic
areas: Tijuana Valley, Portero, Barrett Lake, Monument, Morena, Cottonwood, Cameron, and Campo.
Major drainages of this hydrologic unit include the Cottonwood and Campo creeks, which are tributaries
of the Tijuana River. The annual average precipitation throughout this hydrologic unit ranges between 11
inches in the coastal region and more than 25 inches in the inland region. Runoff from this hydrologic unit
discharges to Morena Reservoir, Barrett Lake, or the Pacific Ocean. This hydrologic unit also contains the
Tijuana Estuary, a 2,000-acre salt water marsh that has highly saline conditions and has many outlets to
the Pacific Ocean. Surface water quality has been adversely affected by runoff coming across the border
from Mexico; ground water quality has been affected by seawater intrusion and waste discharges in both
the U.S. and Mexico.
Otay Hydrologic Unit
Portions of the Central Area System and the Regulatory System within the planning area are located within
the Otay Hydrologic Unit (Figure 4.7-1). This hydrologic unit spans from the Pacific Ocean in the west to
central San Diego County in the east, encompassing a total area of approximately 160 square miles. The
Otay Hydrologic Unit is one of the three county watersheds that discharge to San Diego Bay (County 2007).
The watershed consists largely of unincorporated area, but also includes portions of the cities of Chula
Vista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, National City, and San Diego. It also contains the Coronado, Otay, and
Dulzura hydrologic areas. The only major drainage of this hydrologic unit is the Otay River, although it is
also drained by small tributaries of the Otay River. The annual average precipitation throughout this
hydrologic unit ranges between 11 and 19 inches. Runoff from this hydrologic unit drains primarily into
the Lower Otay Reservoir.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-2
November 2016
Sweetwater Hydrologic Unit
Eastern portions of the Central Area System, Regulatory System, and the entire La Presa System within
the planning area are located within the Sweetwater Hydrologic Unit (Figure 4.7-1). This hydrologic unit
covers approximately 230 square miles, and is long and narrow in shape. It encompasses the Lower
Sweetwater, Middle Sweetwater, and Upper Sweetwater hydrologic areas. The major drainage that spans
the length of this hydrologic unit is the Sweetwater River. The annual average precipitation throughout
this hydrologic unit ranges between less than 11 inches in the coastal region to approximately 35 inches
in the inland region.
Flood Hazards
Flood hazards include direct flooding due to overtopping of nearby rivers or streams, or secondary
flooding due to seismic activity. Based on review of the San Diego County Flood Plains Map (County 2011),
portions of the planning area are within the 100-year floodplain or floodway (Figure 4.7-2).
Seismic activity could potentially generate secondary flooding due to tsunamis or seiches. Tsunamis are
open sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes. Such earthquakes cause vertical motions of the
earth’s crust under the sea resulting in displacement of the overlying water mass and long-period oceanic
waves that can travel hundreds of miles. As they approach the coast, the waves amplify as their length
becomes shorter and often run up the shore in the form of bores and surges. In general, tsunamis rarely
become large and towering waves that break large distances (over five miles) inland; more often they
break far offshore and are never visible from mainland areas. Due to the large distance between the
westernmost point of the planning area (approximately five miles) and the Pacific Ocean, the potential
for tsunamis is not expected to result in a flood hazard to existing OWD facilities. Also seismically induced,
a seiche is classified as the sloshing of water in a large enclosed basin, such as a lake, reservoir, bay, or
channel. Several large reservoirs are adjacent to the planning area, including the Sweetwater, Upper Otay,
and Lower Otay reservoirs (refer to Figure 3-2 of this PEIR); however, there has never been a record of
any seiche events occurring at these reservoirs.
4.7.1.2 Surface Water Quality
A “beneficial use” is defined as a use by which water provides advantages for people and/or wildlife, and
therefore can function as a water quality indicator. Present or potential beneficial uses of surface waters
within the Tijuana, Otay, and Sweetwater hydrologic units include municipal and domestic supply,
agricultural supply, industrial service supply, industrial process supply, contact water recreation, non-
contact water recreation, preservation of biological habitats of special significance, warm freshwater
habitat, cold freshwater habitat, wildlife habitat, rare, threatened, or endangered habitat, and spawning,
reproduction, and/or early development. The Tijuana Hydrologic Unit also includes the following
beneficial uses: freshwater replenishment and hydropower generation. Table 4.7-1 provides definitions
for each of these beneficial uses.
4.7.1.3 Groundwater
The planning area includes the Lower and Middle Sweetwater groundwater basins (collectively known as
the Sweetwater Basins), and the Otay Valley groundwater basin (Figure 4.7-3). As shown in this figure, the
San Diego Formation groundwater basin is adjacent to the west of the planning area, and could be
affected by activities within the planning area where groundwater flows in an east-to-west direction.
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
OTAY
PUEBLOSANDIEGO
SAN DIEGO
SWEETWATER
TIJUANA
Rio Alamar
TecateCreekCottonwoodCreek
Jam u l Creek
TijuanaRiver
D ulzuraCreek
Otay River
S a n Diego Ri ve r
Sw ee t waterRiver
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceWatersheds / Hydrological Units
County Hydrologic UnitsFigure 4.7-1
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.7-1 Hydrologic Units.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437 P2577
P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
Rio Alamar
TecateCreekCottonwoodCreek
Tijuana River
Jam u l Creek
D ulzuraCreek
Otay River
S a n Di ego R iv e r
Sweetw ater River
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence100-Year Floodway100-Year Floodplain
County Floodplains and FloodwaysFigure 4.7-2
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.7-2 Flood Zones.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
EL CAJONVALLEY
SWEETWATERVALLEY
OTAYVALLEY
TIA JUANABASIN
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceGroundwater BasinsAquiferQuaternaryQuaternary Marine and River TerracesOlder Quaternary Terrace DepositsPliocene MarineOligocene NonmarineEocene Marine and NonmarineCretaceous PlutonicUpper Jurassic and Lower CretaceousMarine and Nonmarine
County Groundwater BasinsFigure 4.7-3
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.7-3 Groundwater Basins.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-6
November 2016
Table 4.7-1 Beneficial Use Designations
Designation Abbrev. Definition
Municipal and
Domestic Supply MUN Includes uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems
including, but not limited to, drinking water supply.
Agricultural Supply AGR Includes uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching including, but not limited to,
irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing.
Industrial Service
Supply IND
Includes uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water
quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance,
gravel washing, fire protection, or oil well re-pressurization.
Industrial Process
Supply PROC Includes uses of water for industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality.
Freshwater
Replenishment FRSH Includes uses of water for natural or artificial maintenance of surface water quantity or
quality (e.g., salinity).
Hydropower
Generation POW Includes uses of water for hydropower generation.
Contact Water
Recreation REC1
Includes uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where
ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to,
swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and SCUBA diving, surfing, white water activities,
fishing, or use of natural hot springs.
Non-contact Water
Recreation REC2
Includes the uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not
normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible.
These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing,
camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic
enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities.
Preservation of
Biological Habitats of
Special Significance
BIOL
Includes uses of water that support designated areas or habitats, such as established
refuges, parks, sanctuaries, ecological reserves, or Areas of Special Biological Significance
(ASBS), where the preservation or enhancement of natural resources requires special
protection.
Warm Freshwater
Habitat WARM
Includes uses of water that supports warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to,
preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including
invertebrates.
Cold Freshwater
Habitat COLD
Includes uses of water that support cold water ecosystems including, but not limited to,
preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including
invertebrates.
Wildlife Habitat WILD
Includes uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited to,
preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife, or wildlife water
and food sources.
Rare, Threatened, or
Endangered Species RARE
Includes uses of water that supports habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival
and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal
law as rare, threatened, or endangered.
Spawning,
Reproduction, and/or
Early Development
SPWN
Includes uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction
and early development of fish. This use is applicable only for the protection of
anadromous fish.
Source: RWCQB, San Diego Region, 1994
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-7
November 2016
The San Diego Formation groundwater basin contains water within very thick sediment deposits that are
believed to be at least 1,000 feet deep. The basin ground surface area is 79,724 acres. The estimated total
groundwater storage capacity of this basin is approximately 960,000 acre-feet. Due to capacity and
consumption factors (discussed below), the natural safe yield of the San Diego Formation groundwater
basin is 3,000 to 5,000 AFY.
The Sweetwater Basins receive and collect water from the Sweetwater River due to percolation through
an overlying alluvial valley. These aquifers are “unconfined,” and therefore do not have defined surface
area values. The Lower Sweetwater Basin has an estimated total groundwater storage capacity of 13,000
acre-feet, while the Middle Sweetwater Basin has an estimated total groundwater storage capacity of
28,900 acre-feet. Due to capacity and consumption factors (discussed below), the natural safe yield of the
Lower Sweetwater Basin is 2,400 AFY and the natural safe yield of the Middle Sweetwater Basin is
3,000 AFY.
Due to the proximity of the San Diego Formation and Sweetwater Basins, MWD tracks groundwater use
and water quality data for these two basin areas together. There are 13 municipal wells that average
4,590 AFY in groundwater consumption. Outside of these wells, there is an additional 2,900 AFY of
groundwater consumption.
The primary water quality concerns within the San Diego Formation and Sweetwater Basins are the high
total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride content in water drawn from municipal wells, which ranges from
600 to 3,320 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for TDS and 359 to 1,590 mg/L for chloride.
The Otay Valley Basin underlies alluvial deposits within the Otay River. Storage capacity, the natural safe
yield, consumption information, and water quality data for this basin are unknown at this time (MWD
2007).
4.7.1.4 Urban Runoff
Urban runoff discharged via municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) has been identified as one
of the principal causes of water quality problems in most urban areas. The storm water drainage systems
within the OWD planning area collect runoff from roads, rooftops, driveways, parking lots, and other
impervious areas, which flows directly into receiving waters without receiving treatment. Thus, urban
runoff has the potential to discharge pollutants into receiving waters, thereby affecting water quality,
associated wildlife, and public health. Potential pollutants contained in urban runoff and associated
environmental effects include the following:
■ Sediments. Sediments are soils or other surficial materials eroded and then transported or
deposited by the action of wind, water, ice, or gravity. Sediments can increase turbidity, clog fish
gills, reduce spawning habitat, lower young aquatic organism survival rates, smother bottom
dwelling organisms, and suppress aquatic vegetation growth.
■ Nutrients. Nutrients are inorganic substances, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. They commonly
exist in the form of mineral salts that are either dissolved or suspended in water. Primary sources
of nutrients in urban runoff are fertilizers and eroded soils. Excessive discharge of nutrients to
water bodies and streams can cause excessive aquatic algae and plant growth. Such excessive
production, referred to as eutrophication, may lead to excessive decay of organic matter in the
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-8
November 2016
water body, loss of oxygen in the water, release of toxins in sediment, and the eventual death of
aquatic organisms.
■ Metals. Metals are raw material components in non-metal products such as fuels, adhesives,
paints, and other coatings. Primary sources of metal pollution in storm water are typically
commercially available metals and metal products. Metals of concern include cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Lead and chromium have been used as corrosion
inhibitors in primer coatings and cooling tower systems. At low concentrations that naturally
occur in soils, metals are not toxic. However, at higher concentrations, certain metals can be toxic
to aquatic life. Humans can be impacted from contaminated groundwater resources and
bioaccumulation of metals in fish and shellfish. Environmental concerns regarding the potential
for release of metals to the environment have already led to restricted metal usage in certain
applications.
■ Organic Compounds. Organic compounds are carbon-based. Commercially available or naturally
occurring organic compounds are found in pesticides, solvents, and hydrocarbons. Organic
compounds can, at certain concentrations, indirectly or directly constitute a hazard to life or
health. When rinsing off objects, toxic levels of solvents and cleaning compounds can be
discharged to storm drains. Dirt, grease, and grime retained in the cleaning fluid or rinse water
may also adsorb levels of organic compounds that are harmful or hazardous to aquatic life.
■ Trash and Debris. Trash (such as paper, plastic, polystyrene packing foam, and aluminum
materials) and biodegradable organic matter (such as leaves, grass cuttings, and food waste) are
general waste products on the landscape. The presence of trash and debris may have a significant
impact on the recreational value of a water body and aquatic habitat. Excess organic matter can
create a high biochemical oxygen demand in a stream and thereby lower its water quality. Also,
in areas where stagnant water exists, the presence of excess organic matter can promote septic
conditions resulting in the growth of undesirable organisms and the release of odorous and
hazardous compounds such as hydrogen sulfide.
■ Oxygen Demanding Substances. Oxygen demanding substances include biodegradable organic
material as well as chemicals that react with dissolved oxygen in water to form other compounds.
Proteins, carbohydrates, and fats are examples of biodegradable organic compounds. Compounds
such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are examples of oxygen demanding compounds. The
oxygen demand of a substance can lead to depletion of dissolved oxygen in a water body and
possibly the development of septic conditions.
■ Oil and Grease. Primary sources of oil and grease are petroleum hydrocarbon products, motor
products from leaking vehicles, esters, oils, fats, waxes, and high molecular-weight fatty acids.
Introduction of these pollutants to water bodies is very possible due to the wide uses and
applications of some of these products in municipal, residential, commercial, industrial, and
construction areas. Elevated oil and grease content can decrease the aesthetic value of the water
body, as well as the water quality.
■ Bacteria and Viruses. Bacteria and viruses are ubiquitous microorganisms that thrive under
certain environmental conditions. Their proliferation is typically caused by the transport of animal
or human fecal wastes from the watershed. Water containing excessive bacteria and viruses can
alter the aquatic habitat and create a harmful environment for humans and aquatic life. Also, the
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-9
November 2016
decomposition of excess organic waste causes increased growth of undesirable organisms in the
water.
■ Pesticides. Pesticides (including herbicides) are chemical compounds commonly used to control
nuisance growth or prevalence of organisms. Excessive application of a pesticide may result in
runoff containing toxic levels of its active component.
4.7.2 Regulatory Framework
4.7.2.1 Federal
Clean Water Act
The 1972 CWA was designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
waters of the U.S. The CWA also directs states to establish water quality standards for all waters of the
U.S. and to review and update such standards on a triennial basis. The EPA has delegated responsibility
for implementation of portions of the federal CWA in California to the SWRCB and to the RWQCBs. This
includes water quality control planning and programs such as the NPDES, which seeks to protect water
quality through the issuance of permits regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S.
Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all intrastate waters of
the U.S.
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies that would not
attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point source
dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires that the state develop a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the listed pollutants. The TMDL is the amount of loading that the
water body can receive and still be in compliance with water quality objectives. The TMDL can also act as
a plan to reduce loading of a specific pollutant from various sources to achieve compliance with water
quality objectives. The TMDL prepared by the state must include an allocation of allowable loadings to
point and nonpoint sources, with consideration of background loadings and a margin of safety. The TMDL
must also include an analysis that shows the linkage between loading reductions and the attainment of
water quality objectives. The EPA must either approve a TMDL prepared by the state or, if it disapproves
the state’s TMDL, issue its own. NPDES permit limits for listed pollutants must be consistent with the
waste load allocation prescribed in the TMDL. After implementation of the TMDL, it is anticipated that the
problems that led to placement of a given pollutant on the Section 303(d) list would be remediated. In
California, preparation and management of the Section 303(d) list is administered by the RWQCBs.
Clean Water Act Section 404
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill
material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Responsibility for administering and enforcing Section
404 is shared by the USACE and EPA. The USACE administers the day-to-day program, including individual
permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations; develops policy and guidance; and enforces Section
404 provisions. EPA develops and interprets environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications,
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-10
November 2016
identifies activities that are exempt from permitting, reviews/comments on individual permit applications,
enforces Section 404 provisions, and has authority to veto USACE permit decisions.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act/National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
The 1972 CWA was designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
waters of the U.S. The CWA also directs states to establish water quality standards for all waters of the
U.S. and to review and update such standards on a triennial basis. The EPA has delegated responsibility
for implementation of portions of the federal CWA in California to the SWRCB and to the RWQCBs. This
includes water quality control planning and programs such as the NPDES, which seeks to protect water
quality through the issuance of permits regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S.
Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all intrastate waters of
the U.S.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, Public Law 93-523), passed in 1974, the EPA regulates
contaminants of concern to domestic water supply. Contaminants of concern relevant to domestic water
supply are defined as those that pose a public health threat or that alter the aesthetic acceptability of the
water. These types of contaminants are regulated by EPA primary and secondary Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) that are applicable to treated water supplies delivered to the distribution system. MCLs and
the process for setting these standards are reviewed triennially. Amendments to the SDWA enacted in
1986 established an accelerated schedule for setting MCLs for drinking water. The applicable state primary
and secondary MCLs are set forth in Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 4 of the California Code of
Regulations.
National Flood Insurance Act
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to
provide flood insurance within communities that were willing to adopt floodplain management programs
to mitigate future flood losses. The Act also required the identification of floodplain areas within the
U.S. and the establishment of flood-risk zones within those areas. FEMA is the primary agency responsible
for administering programs and coordinating with communities to establish effective floodplain
management standards. FEMA is responsible for preparing Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that
delineate the areas of known flood hazards and their risk applicable to the community.
National Flood Insurance Reform Act
The National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 resulted in major changes in the NFIP. The Act, which
amended the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, provided tools to make NFIP more effective in
achieving its goals of reducing the risk of flood damage to properties and reducing federal expenditures
for uninsured properties that are damaged by flood. The Act required mitigation insurance and
established a grant program for state and community flood mitigation planning projects.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-11
November 2016
4.7.2.2 State
State Water Resources Control Board
Created by the California State Legislature in 1967, the SWRCB holds authority over water resources
allocation and water quality protection within the state. The five-member SWRCB allocates water rights,
adjudicates water right disputes, develops statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality
standards, and guides the nine RWQCBs. The mission of SWRCB is to, “preserve, enhance, and restore the
quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit
of present and future generations.” As of July 1, 2014, the EPA has delegated to the SWRCB the
responsibility for administering California’s drinking water program. SWRCB is accountable to EPA for
program implementation and for adopting standards and regulations that are at least as stringent as those
developed by EPA.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant for any federal permit (such as a Section 404 permit from
the USACE) that proposes an activity which may result in a discharge to “waters of the State” obtain
certification from the SWRCB, acting through the RWQCB, that the federal permit action meets state
water quality objectives. Section 401 grants the State of California, through the RWQCB, the right to
ensure its interests are protected on any federally permitted activity occurring in or adjacent to waters of
the State. Therefore, if a proposed project requires a 404 permit and has the potential to impact waters
of the State, the RWQCB will regulate the project and associated activities through a Water Quality
Certification determination. The USACE will not issue a Section 404 permit until the RWQCB has been
notified and the applicant has obtained a Section 401 certification.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, enacted in 1972, authorizes the SWRCB to adopt, review,
and revise policies for all waters of the State (including both surface and ground waters), and directs the
RWQCBs to develop region-specific Basin Plans. Section 13170 of the California Water Code also
authorizes the SWRCB to adopt water quality control plans on its own initiative. The purpose of these
plans is to designate beneficial uses of the region’s surface and ground waters, designate water quality
objectives for the reasonable protection of those uses, and establish an implementation plan to achieve
the objectives.
Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act of 1965
Under the Cobey-Alquist Floodplain Management Act, local governments are encouraged to plan, adopt
and enforce land use regulations for floodplain management, in order to protect people and property
from flooding hazards. This Act also identifies requirements that jurisdictions must meet in order to
receive state financial assistance for flood control. The Act supports restrictive general plan policies and
zoning provisions with respect to floodplain management. Policies and programs providing for protection
and prevention of community flood hazards should be incorporated into the safety element of the
jurisdiction’s general plan. Further, floodways and floodplain boundaries should be designated, and a
consistent land use designation given to affected lands in the land use element (including its diagram) of
the jurisdiction’s general plan.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-12
November 2016
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits
In California, the SWRCB and its RWQCBs administer the NPDES permit program. The NPDES permit
system was established in the federal and California CWA to regulate both point-source discharges and
nonpoint-source discharges to surface waters of the U.S. The NPDES program consists of characterizing
receiving water quality, identifying harmful constituents, targeting potential sources of pollutants, and
implementing a comprehensive storm water management program. Construction and industrial activities
are typically regulated under statewide general permits that are issued by the SWRCB. The RWQCB also
issues Waste Discharge Requirements that also serve as NPDES permits under the authority delegated to
the RWQCBs, under the CWA. In November 1990, under Phase I of the urban runoff management strategy,
the EPA published NPDES permit application requirements for municipal, industrial, and construction
storm water discharges. With regard to municipalities, the permit application requirements were directed
at jurisdictions owning or operating municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving populations
of 100,000 or more, or contributing significant pollutants to waters of the U.S. Such municipalities were
required to obtain coverage under an NPDES municipal storm water permit, as well as to develop and
implement an urban runoff management program to reduce pollutants in urban runoff and storm water
discharges.
California Water Code, Groundwater Management Act
California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.75, Chapters 1-5, Sections 10750 through 10755.4 establish the
Groundwater Management Act, which was enacted in 1992 as AB 3030. The intent of the Groundwater
Management Act is to encourage local agencies to work cooperatively to manage groundwater resources
within their jurisdictions and to provide a methodology for developing a Groundwater Management Plan.
AB 3030 was amended in 2002 by SB 1938, which modified the Groundwater Management Act by
requiring any public agency seeking state funds administered through the DWR for the construction of
groundwater projects to prepare and implement a groundwater management plan with specified
components. Further, SB 1938 amended the Groundwater Management Act so that SB 1938 requirements
applied not just to management areas that overlie Bulletin 118 defined groundwater basins, but to those
agencies that have groundwater management outside of those basins.
AB 3030 was amended in 2011 by AB 359, which modified the Groundwater Management Act by requiring
public agencies to prepare and implement a groundwater management plan with an additional
component that focuses on identifying groundwater recharge areas. Additionally, AB 395 also included
several plan adoption procedural changes.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a three-bill legislative package, comprised
of AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley) and SB 1319 (Pavley), collectively known as the Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of
groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for state intervention only if necessary to
protect the resource. The SGMA requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies
(GSAs) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally-based management plans.
The act provides a 20 year timeline for the GSAs to implement the plans in order to achieve long-term
groundwater sustainability. Further, the act protects existing surface water and groundwater rights and
does not interfere with current drought response measures.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-13
November 2016
4.7.2.3 Local
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
The proposed project area is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB. As authorized by
Porter-Cologne, the San Diego RWQCB’s primary function is to protect the quality of the waters within its
jurisdiction, including the proposed project area, for all beneficial uses. State law defines beneficial uses
of California’s waters that may be protected against quality degradation to include, but not be limited to:
domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic
enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources
or preserves.
The San Diego RWQCB implements water quality protection measures by formulating and adopting water
quality control plans (referred to as basin plans, as discussed below) for specific groundwater and surface
water basins, and by prescribing and enforcing requirements on all agricultural, domestic, and industrial
waste discharges. The Board oversees many programs to support and provide benefit to water quality,
including the following major programs: agricultural regulatory; above-ground tanks; basin planning;
California Bay-Delta Authority; confined animal facilities; landfills and mining; non-point source; spills,
leaks, investigations, and cleanups; storm water; TMDL; underground storage tanks, wastewater
discharges (including the NPDES); water quality certification; and watershed management.
San Diego Basin Plan
The San Diego Basin Plan (SDBP), adopted in 1994 and most recently amended in 2011, sets forth water
quality objectives for constituents that could potentially cause an adverse effect or impact on the
beneficial uses of water. Specifically, the SDBP is designed to accomplish the following: (1) designate
beneficial uses for surface and ground waters; (2) set the narrative and numerical objectives that must be
attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state anti-
degradation policy; (3) describe implementation programs to protect the beneficial uses of all waters
within the region; and (4) describe surveillance and monitoring activities to evaluate the effectiveness of
the SDBP. The SDBP incorporates by reference all applicable SWRCB and RWQCB plans and policies.
County of San Diego Watershed Protection, Stormwater
Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance
The current Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO)
and the Stormwater Standards Manual were adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in January
2016August 2003. The stated purposes of these ordinances are to protect the health, safety and general
welfare of the San Diego County residents; to protect water resources and to improve water quality; to
cause the use of management practices by the county and its citizens that will reduce the adverse effects
of polluted runoff discharges on waters of the state; to secure benefits from the use of storm water as a
resource; and to ensure the county is compliant with applicable state and federal law. The WPO contains
discharge prohibitions, and requirements that vary depending on type of land use activity and location in
the county.
In addition, the County of San Diego has adopted its Best Management Practices (BMP) Design Manual
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for land development and public improvement
projects to comply with the 2013 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (Order No. R9-
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-14
November 2016
2013-0001 as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100). The BMP Design Manual SUSMP is focused
on project design requirements and related post-construction requirements for land development and
capital improvement projects, and addresses WPO requirements for these project types.
San Diego County Groundwater Ordinance
The County of San Diego manages anticipated groundwater demand through the County Groundwater
Ordinance. This Ordinance does not limit the number of wells or the amount of groundwater extraction
from existing landowners. However, the Ordinance does identify specific measures to mitigate potential
groundwater impacts of projects requiring specified discretionary permits. Existing land uses are not
subject to the Ordinance unless a listed discretionary permit is required. Additionally, major use permits
or major use permit modifications that involve construction of agricultural and ranch support facilities, or
those involving new or expanded agricultural land uses, are among the exemptions from the Ordinance.
However, the agricultural exemption does not supersede or limit the application of any law or regulation,
including CEQA.
OWD Hazardous Materials Business Plan
OWD routinely prepares and implements a HMBP at each existing facility that involves the transportation,
storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.
4.7.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.7.3.1 Issue 1 – Water Quality
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following SCP
and PDF, as well as Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section 4.5.3.2, Geology, of this PEIR), to reduce
potential impacts to water quality standards. Additionally, CIP projects will incorporate permanent site
design and source control BMPs in accordance with the County WPO and BMP Design Manual and
conform to any applicable Priority Development Project requirements detailed in WPO Section 67.810(b).
Hyd-SCP-1 In accordance with the Water Agencies’ Standards, the construction contractor is
required to implement a safety plan at each CIP construction site that would involve the
transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Such plans will also specify
storm water BMPs, to be consistent with those identified in Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section
4.5, Geology, of this PEIR), to minimize downstream water quality degradation from
runoff pollution associated with CIP construction activities.
Hyd-PDF-1 For each CIP facility that would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials during project operation, OWD will implement a site-specific
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), including BMPs to prevent downstream
water quality degradation from runoff pollution associated with CIP post-construction
operations. In addition, OWD is required to obtain a permit from the County Department
of Environmental Health (DEH) allowing for the use of specified hazardous substances
during the CIP post-construction operation of these sites (refer to Section 4.11, Public
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-15
November 2016
Safety, of this PEIR). Typical BMPs to be implemented as part of the HMBP may include,
but are not limited to, the actions listed below.
i. Minor chemical spills will be contained by absorbent, using trained employees in
proper protective equipment, and waste will be placed in a properly labeled container
for disposal.
ii. For major chemical spills, employees will notify the local fire department. Prior to
arrival by emergency responders, trained employees using proper protective
equipment will attempt to contain the spill using absorbent, physical barriers, or
other methods as specified in the HMBP, and prevent it from entering the storm drain
and from discharging off-site as runoff.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update could have a
significant impact if it violates any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality.
Impact Analysis
Water Quality Standards/Waste Discharge Requirements
Construction Impacts. Storm water pollutants associated with construction activities could include, but
are not limited to, sediments, oil and grease, and organic compounds. Water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements that would be applicable to the OWD and to the CIP projects under the 2015
WFMP Update are set forth by the SWRCB and/or the RWQCB. As described in Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3
(refer to Section 4.5.3.2, Geology, of this PEIR), all CIP construction contractors are required to implement
construction and post-construction BMPs in accordance with either an Erosion Control Plan (for projects
that would result in less than one acre of land disturbance), pursuant to the storm water regulations or
ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, or in accordance with a
SWPPP (for any project greater than one acre in size), pursuant to the NPDES General Construction Permit.
In addition, as described in Hyd-SCP-1 above, prior to grading, all CIP construction contractors are required
to submit and implement a safety plan. These plans would also identify construction BMPs to reduce
impacts to surface water quality due to storm water runoff pollution from construction sites including,
but not limited to, erosion control/stabilizing measures in cleared areas and on graded slopes (e.g.,
geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls, soil binders, temporary hydroseeding); sediment controls (e.g., temporary
inlet filters, silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, check dams, street sweeping,
energy dissipaters); and stabilized construction access points (e.g., temporary gravel or pavement) and
sediment stockpiles (e.g., silt fences and tarps).
Operational Impacts. Potential storm water pollutants associated with the developed CIP project sites
could include, but are not limited to, sediment discharges, nutrients from fertilizers, heavy metals, organic
compounds, trash and debris deposited in drain inlets, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease,
bacteria and viruses, and pesticides from landscaping. For long-term operations at CIP reservoirs, pump
stations, and groundwater wells that would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials, OWD would prepare and implement a HMBP and obtain and comply with a DEH permit, as
described in Hyd-PDF-1 above. The HMBP would identify post-construction BMPs to reduce potential
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-16
November 2016
impacts to surface water quality due to storm water runoff pollution from developed sites including, but
not limited to, containment of chemical spills (e.g., absorbent, physical barriers, or other methods) by
trained employees using proper protective equipment and disposal of waste in a properly labeled
container; and notification of emergency response agencies for major chemical spills. Therefore,
implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1 would reduce impacts associated
with potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements resulting from
construction and operation of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1 would reduce impacts associated
with potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and potential surface
water quality degradation resulting from construction, development and long-term operations of CIP
projects under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.7.3.2 Issue 2 – Groundwater Quality, Supplies and
Recharge
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to Geo-SCP-2 and
Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section 4.5.3.2, Geology, of this PEIR) and Hyd-SCP-1 and Hyd-PDF-1 (refer to
Section 4.7.3.1, Issue 1) to reduce potential impacts to groundwater quality.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it substantially degrades groundwater quality, or interferes substantially with
groundwater supplies or 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).
Impact Analysis
Groundwater Quality
Construction Impacts. As shown in Figure 4.7-3, no CIP projects would be located within the Sweetwater
and Otay Valley groundwater basins; however, the following projects would be constructed adjacent to
these basins, and could therefore affect the quality of groundwater in these basins: P2391 (Perdue WTP
Pump Station, 10,000 gpm), P2554 (624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue), P2405 (624/340
PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road), P2579 (Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Rehabilitation),
and P2392 (Lower Otay Pump Station Replacement and Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm).
Pollutants generated by construction activities for these CIP projects could potentially be carried in runoff
that may drain off-site and percolate into the nearby groundwater basins. Storm water pollutants
associated with construction activities are listed in Section 4.7.3.1 (Issue 1) above and could include, but
are not limited to, sediments, oil and grease, and organic compounds. However, implementation of Geo-
SCP-3 and Hyd-SCP-1 would reduce potential groundwater quality impacts due to storm water runoff
pollution associated with construction of P2391 (Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm), P2554 (624/340
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-17
November 2016
PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue), P2405 (624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road), P2579
(Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Rehabilitation), and P2392 (Lower Otay Pump Station Replacement
and Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm) to a less than significant level.
Operational Impacts. Following construction of P2391 (Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm), P2554
(624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue), P2405 (624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock
Road), P2579 (Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Rehabilitation), and P2392 (Lower Otay Pump Station
Replacement and Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm), pollutants generated by development and
operational activities for these CIP projects could potentially be carried in runoff that may drain off-site
and percolate into the nearby groundwater basins. Such storm water pollutants are listed in Section
4.7.3.1 (Issue 1) above and could include, but are not limited to, sediment discharges, nutrients from
fertilizers, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris deposited in drain inlets, oxygen
demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides from landscaping. In addition,
the Otay Mesa Lot 7 groundwater well development project (P2482) would involve groundwater
extraction. This CIP project would involve the addition of water treatment facilities to the existing wells
which would avoid impacts to groundwater quality. Implementation of Geo-SCP-2 and Hyd-PDF-1 would
reduce potential groundwater quality impacts due to storm water runoff pollution associated with
development and long-term operations at P2391 (Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm), P2554
(624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue), P2405 (624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock
Road), P2579 (Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Rehabilitation), and P2392 (Lower Otay Pump Station
Replacement and Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm) to a less than significant level.
Groundwater Supplies and Recharge
The Otay Mesa Lot 7 groundwater well development project (P2482) would involve groundwater
extraction. The groundwater well is estimated to extract between 300 and 500 AFY (Atkins 2016). The
amount of groundwater extraction associated with P2482 would not increase over existing conditions.
Therefore, CIP project P2482 would not result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table.
As shown in Figure 4.7-3, construction of the CIP reservoirs and pump stations would occur outside of the
Sweetwater and Otay Valley groundwater basins. In addition, these projects would be located at higher
elevations than the adjacent groundwater basins; therefore, it would not be practical to install
groundwater pumps and pipelines to serve these sites for any dewatering activities that may be required
for construction of these CIP projects. Since none of these CIP projects would be placed over the
Sweetwater and Otay Valley groundwater basins, there would not be an increase in impermeable surface
areas that would otherwise substantially prohibit groundwater percolation. Therefore, there would be no
impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge from implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1 would reduce potential
groundwater quality impacts due to storm water runoff pollution associated with construction,
development and long-term operations at P2391 (Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm), P2554
(624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue), P2405 (624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock
Road), P2579 (Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Rehabilitation), and P2392 (Lower Otay Pump Station
Replacement and Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm) to a less than significant level. In addition, there
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-18
November 2016
would be no impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge from implementation of the 2015 WFMP
Update; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.7.3.3 Issue 3 – Alteration of Drainage Patterns
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following PDF,
as well as Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section 4.5.3.2, Geology, of this PEIR), to reduce potential
impacts associated with potential storm water runoff pollution (including erosion/siltation), flooding and
exceedance of capacity of storm water drainage facilities due to alteration of localized drainage patterns.
Hyd-PDF-2 At the time of CIP project design, the OWD will implement the relevant requirements of
the 2013 UBC and CBC for all above-ground CIP projects (reservoirs, pump stations, and
facilities for groundwater production wells), including the design of appropriately sized
drainage facilities, where necessary, to capture runoff from each project site to reduce
the risk of flooding.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the 2015 WFMP Update may have a significant impact if it
would substantially alter existing drainage patterns, including 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 provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (including erosion/siltation); result in flooding (and
exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death); or exceed the capacity of
storm water drainage systems.
Impact Analysis
Increases in Surface Runoff - Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff/Erosion/Siltation
None of the CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would be located within a drainage course.
Although not altering drainage courses, construction and development of the CIP project sites could result
in the localized alteration of drainage patterns through topographic modifications. Such alterations of
drainage patterns may result in temporary (during construction) and permanent (post-construction)
increases in the rate or amount of surface runoff discharging from the CIP project sites which could
represent additional pollutant sources, including erosion and downstream siltation. However,
implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1 would reduce impacts associated
with storm water runoff pollution (including erosion and excess siltation) from construction and operation
of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level.
Flooding
In addition to potential impacts associated with increased runoff pollutants, alteration of drainage courses
could also result in temporary or permanent increases in runoff volumes that could cause ponding and/or
flooding events. However, as described in Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3 (refer to Section 4.5.3.2, Geology, of
this PEIR), all CIP construction contractors are required to implement construction and post-construction
BMPs in accordance with either an Erosion Control Plan (for projects that would result in less than one
acre of land disturbance), pursuant to the storm water regulations or ordinances of the local agency
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-19
November 2016
jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, or in accordance with a SWPPP (for any project greater
than one acre in size), pursuant to the NPDES General Construction Permit. These plans identify BMPs to
reduce temporary flooding impacts, such as detention basins to collect surface water runoff and allow it
to percolate slowly into the soils. In addition, as described in Hyd-PDF-2 above, to prevent flooding from
the developed sites, all CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and above-ground facilities for groundwater
production wells would be designed to include appropriately sized drainage facilities to capture and
convey storm water flows, in accordance with UBC and CBC standards. Therefore, implementation of Geo-
SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, and Hyd-PDF-2 would reduce temporary (construction) and permanent (operational)
impacts associated with potential flooding at CIP project sites to a less than significant level.
Storm Water Drainage Capacity
Temporary and/or permanent alterations of localized drainage patterns may result in increases in the rate
or volume of surface runoff discharging from the CIP project sites which could exceed the capacity of
existing or planned off-site storm water drainage systems. However, as described in Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-
SCP-3 (refer to Section 4.5.3.2, Geology, of this PEIR), all CIP construction contractors are required to
implement construction and post-construction BMPs in accordance with either an Erosion Control Plan
(for projects that would result in less than one acre of land disturbance), pursuant to the storm water
regulations or ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, or in
accordance with a SWPPP (for any project greater than one acre in size), pursuant to the NPDES General
Construction Permit. These plans identify BMPs to reduce temporary flooding impacts, such as detention
basins to collect surface water runoff and allow it to percolate slowly into the soils. For the developed
condition, all CIP reservoirs and pump stations would be designed to include appropriately sized drainage
facilities to capture and convey storm water runoff flows, in accordance with UBC and CBC standards.
With these drainage facilities in place, the incremental increase in surface runoff flows from the developed
reservoir and pump station sites are not expected to exceed the capacity of storm water drainage systems.
Therefore, implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, and Hyd-PDF-2 would reduce impacts associated
with potentially exceeding the capacity of storm water drainage systems (for construction, post-
construction, and developed conditions) to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, Hyd-PDF-1, and Hyd-PDF-2 would reduce potential
impacts from storm water runoff pollution (including erosion/siltation), flooding, and exceedance of
capacity of storm water drainage facilities due to alteration of localized drainage patterns associated with
construction and operation of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level;
therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.7.3.4 Issue 4 – Mudflows
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, Geo-SCP-1 (refer
to Section 4.5.3.1, Geology, of this PEIR) to reduce potential impacts to above-ground CIP structures
associated with mudflows.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-20
November 2016
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the 2015 WFMP Update may have a significant impact if it
would expose above-ground CIP structures to a significant risk of loss involving inundation by mudflow.
Impact Analysis
As discussed in Section 4.5.3.1 (Geology) of this PEIR, based on the presence of relatively steep topography
and the underlying San Diego and Otay geologic formations within the planning area (refer to Figure 4.5-
2 of this PEIR), there is a potential for seismically induced landslides and mudflows to occur in these areas
that could cause substantial damage to the following CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update: P2002
(Phase IIIA pump station), P2576 (Phase III water storage), and P2228 (Phase III water storage). Geo-SCP-
1 would require the completion of a geotechnical study prior to construction of these CIP projects to
adequately assess geotechnical issues, including mudflow potential. Such geotechnical study would
include sampling of subsurface earth materials. If such materials are found to be susceptible to mudflows,
then appropriate techniques to minimize this potential would be designed and implemented, including
but not limited to, remedial grading, slope stabilization in areas of proposed development, or construction
of buttress fills to remediate the potential for instability of cut slopes. Therefore, implementation of Geo-
SCP-1 would reduce the exposure of people and CIP facilities to substantial adverse effects associated
with potential mudflows to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Geo-SCP-1 would reduce the exposure of above-ground CIP facilities to substantial
adverse effects associated with mudflows to a less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is
required.
4.7.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would the 2015 WFMP Update place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
As shown in Figure 4.7-2, one above-ground facility (P2405; 624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock
Road) under the 2015 WFMP Update would be constructed within a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain
or floodway. However, this facility is a pressure reducing station (as described in Section 5.2.5 of the 2015
WFMP Update) which is comprised of a main pressure reducing valve and a small reducing valve housed
in a pre‐cast concrete vault and may also include a pressure relief valve designed to protect the lower
system from over‐pressurization in the event of a valve failure, all of which occupies a small 10 foot by 8
foot footprint on the ground surface that would not cause an redirection or impedance to the natural
direction of flood flows. Therefore, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in the
placement of an above-ground CIP structure that would impede or redirect flood flows within the 100-
year flood hazard area.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-21
November 2016
Would any CIP facilities associated with the 2015 WFMP Update have the potential to be
inundated by tsunami or seiche?
Tsunamis. As shown in Figure 4.7-2, the CIP reservoirs and pump stations under the 2015 WFMP Update
would be located in the central and eastern portions of the planning area, over 10 miles from the Pacific
Ocean. Therefore, none of the CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would be at a significant risk
for inundation by a tsunami.
Seiches. The Sweetwater, Upper Otay, and Lower Otay reservoirs, in which seismically induced seiches could
occur, were constructed and are operated under all relevant safety and design features, including the
ability to accommodate surface waves associated with seismic events. Therefore, none of the CIP projects
under the 2015 WFMP Update would be at a significant risk for inundation by a seiche.
Would the 2015 WFMP Update expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
As shown in Figure 4.7-2, none of the CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and above-ground facilities for
groundwater production wells under the 2015 WFMP Update would be constructed within a FEMA-
designated 100-year floodplain or floodway limits extending downstream of the Sweetwater and Otay
reservoirs to the Pacific Ocean, which would be the areas affected by a potential dam break at either of
these facilities. Therefore, none of the CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would be at a significant
risk for inundation as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
4.7.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCQB), San Diego Region. 1994. Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). Amendments Effective April 4, 2011.
County of San Diego (County). 2007. Floodplain Management Plan. August.
County of San Diego (County). 2011. San Diego County General Plan, Chapter 5 - Conservation and Open
Space Element. August.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 2007. Draft Groundwater Assessment Study. Report
Number 1308. Accessed April 2016 at
http://edmsidm.mwdh2o.com/idmweb/cache/MWD%20EDMS/003697466-1.pdf
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.7-22
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-1
November 2016
4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the WRMP
planning area with respect to landform alteration and visual aesthetics; the potential physical
environmental effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) related to these issues resulting from
development of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update; and the project design features, standard
construction practices, and mitigation/performance measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts.
Potential indirect impacts of night lighting to biological resources are discussed in Section 4.2 (Biological
Resources) of this PEIR.
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
To define the visual character of the planning area, this section includes a discussion of the landform,
vegetation, and development found within the area. Landform includes the major topographic features
of the area; vegetation includes natural and ornamental vegetation of the area; and development includes
the general land use types (such as residential, commercial, open space) of the area.
The planning area spans 80,320 acres (125.5 square miles) within south central San Diego County. The
visual character of this large area varies greatly. Elevations within the planning area range from 59 feet
AMSL to 2,605 feet AMSL. The planning area contains visual features such as valleys, hills, mountains,
mesas, lakes and rivers, as well as both urban and rural lands. Major transportation routes include I-8, SR-
54, and SR-94 to the north; I-805 to the west; and SR-125 in the north and south. Due to the size of the
planning area, a discussion of the visual characteristics for each of the five primary service areas (i.e., the
Hillsdale, La Presa, and Regulatory systems in the North District; and Central and Otay Mesa systems in
the South District), as shown in Figure 3-2 of this PEIR, is provided below.
4.8.1.1 North District
Approximately 35 percent of the North District is disturbed or developed. The majority of the area
(approximately 57 percent) is coastal scrub and chaparral communities; the remaining area contains
grassland, riparian, and woodland.
Regulatory System
This area spans 27,440 acres within the eastern portion of the planning area. Of the five service areas, the
Regulatory System contains the most undeveloped land, and is just west of the southern edge of Cleveland
National Forest. Elevations within this area range from 289 feet AMSL to 2,605 feet AMSL.
This service area contains the following scenic topographic features: San Miguel Mountain, Mother Miguel
Mountain, and a portion of the Jamul Mountains. Dulzura Creek extends from the Lower Otay Reservoir
in the south, paralleling Otay Lakes Road until reaching SR-94, and then follows SR-94 to the southeast
corner of the service area. Steele Canyon and Steele Canyon Golf Course are important visual resources
to the community, and are located within Steele Canyon Valley. The Jamul Mountains traverse the south
portion of the planning area, and the San Miguel Mountains traverse the west portion. Vegetation types
within this service area includes marsh and wetland, forest, grassland (native, non-native and vernal
pools), riparian communities, coastal scrub and chaparral, and woodland.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-2
November 2016
The rural communities of Jamul and Steele Canyon are located within this service area. Jamul is a rural
town with small commercial centers located at two main intersections along SR-94. Steele Canyon is a
small, semi-rural community along SR-94. Land uses within these communities include residential,
commercial, industrial, and open space.
La Presa System
This service area is 5,882 acres within the northwestern portion of the planning area. The majority of the
topography in the La Presa System is relatively flat. The Sweetwater Reservoir is a scenic aquatic feature
that lies just outside the southerly boundary of the service area. The La Presa System contains the
communities of La Presa, Rancho San Diego, and a portion of Spring Valley. This area is characterized with
a balance of urban, semi-rural, agricultural, and open space land uses.
Hillsdale System
The Hillsdale System, in the northern portion of the planning area, comprises 9,569 acres. Elevations range
from 325 feet AMSL to 2,167 feet AMSL, and this area contains one scenic topographic feature: McGinty
Mountain. In addition, Jamacha Valley and Sweetwater River traverse this service area. The communities
of Jamacha, Dehesa, and Cottonwood make up the urban areas of the Hillsdale System, which include
residential, commercial, industrial, and open space land uses.
4.8.1.2 South District
Central Area System
The Central Area System is located in eastern Chula Vista and consists of 27,702 acres. Elevations range
from 59 feet AMSL to 2,369 feet AMSL. Although there are no scenic topographic features within this
service area, the Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs are scenic aquatic features that lie just outside the
easterly boundary.
Poggi Canyon, Otay Valley and Otay River traverse the southerly service area boundary. The north-south
trending Poggi Canyon is a tributary to the Otay River and is located midway between I-805 and SR-125,
south of Olympic Parkway and directly west of Rock Mountain. Rock Mountain is an active quarry that is
also located west of SR-125 and directly north of Otay River Valley and east of Poggi Canyon. Although it
is being mined for sand, gravel and boulders, the peak of the mountain (at an elevation of 620 feet AMSL)
is considered an aesthetic resource in the Chula Vista General Plan.
Developed areas within the Central System consist of residential industrial, and commercial and
recreational land uses. Development is centered along major road corridors including Telegraph Canyon
Road and East H Street. Approximately 53 percent of the Central System is urban; the remaining portions
contain coastal scrub and chaparral communities, grassland, and riparian.
Otay Mesa System
The Otay Mesa System contains rolling hills, open mesas, river valleys, canyons, and mountain ranges with
steep, rugged terrain. Elevations range from 213 feet AMSL to 1,522 feet AMSL. There are no scenic
topographic features within this service area, as the nearest landmark, Otay Mountain, is located 4.5 miles
to the east. Otay Valley and Otay River traverse the northerly service area boundary.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-3
November 2016
Developed areas within the Otay Mesa System include portions of the city of San Diego and the Otay
Subregion (County 2011b). The San Diego portion features agricultural and industrial land uses, and the
Otay Mesa area features primarily agricultural land use, along with San Diego County and state
correctional facilities. Approximately 49 percent of the area is disturbed or developed; the remaining
portions consist of coastal scrub and chaparral communities, and grassland.
4.8.2 Regulatory Framework
4.8.2.1 Federal
There are no applicable federal regulations.
4.8.2.2 State
California Scenic Highways Program
The California Scenic Highways Program was created by the California Scenic Highway Law in 1963 with
the purpose of preserving and protecting scenic highway corridors from any change that would diminish
the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. California Scenic Highways are those highways that are
either officially designated by Caltrans or are eligible for designation. A highway’s “scenic corridor” status
changes from “eligible” to “officially designated” when the local jurisdiction adopts a Scenic Corridor
Protection Program; applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval; and receives notification from
Caltrans that the highway has been designated as an official State Scenic Highway. Once a scenic highway
is designated as such, the responsibility lies with the local jurisdiction to regulate development within the
scenic highway corridor. This applies only to areas where the local agency has land use jurisdiction. Scenic
highway nominations are evaluated using the following criteria:
■ The proposed scenic highway is principally within an unspoiled native habitat, and showcases the
unique aspects of the landscape, agriculture, or water features;
■ Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor;
■ Strong local support for the proposed scenic highway designation is demonstrated; and
■ The length of the proposed scenic highway is not short or segmented.
4.8.2.3 Local
OWD is a member agency of the SDCWA, which is governed primarily by the County Water Authority Act
(Stats. 1943, c. 545). This Act mandates the SDCWA to provide water to meet the needs of member
agencies in its service area. As defined under Section 53091 of the California Government Code, the
SDCWA and its member agencies, including OWD, are not subject to local land use plans, policies, and
ordinances; however, for the purposes of CEQA analysis, local land use planning documents are addressed
in this PEIR.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-4
November 2016
The planning area spans three different land use jurisdictions: County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and
City of Chula Vista. All three of these agencies have adopted general plans that identify scenic resources
and vistas within their respective jurisdiction. The general plan-designated scenic resources and vistas
within the planning area are described below.
County of San Diego General Plan
As shown in Figure 4.8-1, five of the County of San Diego’s Community Planning Areas (CPAs) or
Subregional Plans partially fall within the WRMP planning area: Crest/Dehesa CPA, Jamul/Dulzura
Subregional Plan, Otay Subregional Plan, Sweetwater CPA, and Spring Valley CPA. Within the Crest/Dehesa
CPA, Dehesa Mountain, Ironside Mountain, and El Capitan are identified as an important scenic resource
(County 2011a). The Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan identifies Lawson Peak, Tecate Peak, and Otay
Mountain as valuable scenic resources; and SR-94, Lyons Valley Road, Skyline Truck Trail, Proctor Valley
Road, Honey Springs, Otay Lakes, and Lawson Valley Road as scenic highway corridors (County 2014a).
The Otay Subregion Plan, which includes Village 13, identifies Otay Mountain as visually significant
(County 2011b). The Sweetwater CPA lists Sweetwater Dam and large trees as a scenic resources; Bonita
Road, San Miguel, Guajolote, and Sweetwater Road as scenic roads; and Mother Miguel Mountain as a
scenic viewshed (County 2014c). The Spring Valley CPA identifies the Spring Valley trail, including
Sweetwater Lake, Sweetwater Dam, and Lookout Mountain, as scenic resources (County 2014b).
City of San Diego General Plan
The City of San Diego General Plan does not identify any specific “scenic vistas” within the community of
Otay Mesa, which is the portion of the city that falls within the planning area (City of San Diego 2007). For
purposes of this PEIR, a scenic vista is defined as a “highly valued landscape” identified within an adopted
planning document. Instead, the General Plan identifies a community-wide goal of preserving privacy and
views for Otay Mesa.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The City of Chula Vista General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element (Section 3.1, Scenic Resources
and Open Space Network), identifies the following scenic resources that occur within the planning area:
San Miguel and Mother Miguel mountains; Sweetwater Reservoir; Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs; and
Otay River Valley.
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
Alpine CPA
Crest-DehesaCPA
Valle DeOro CPA
SweetwaterCPA
Otay CPA
Jamul-DulzuraCPA
Otay CPA
SweetwaterCPA
SpringValleyCPA
Lakeside CPA
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
San Diego County Community Planning AreasFigure 4-8.1
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.8-1 Community Planning Areas.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-6
November 2016
4.8.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.8.3.1 Issue 1 – Scenic Vistas
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following PDF
to reduce potential impacts to scenic vistas.
Aes-PDF-1 In accordance with Water Agencies’ Standards and standard operating procedures, the
following design, landscaping and irrigation measures will be implemented for CIP
projects:
i. Reservoirs, pump station buildings, and groundwater wells will use appropriate
building materials and color palettes that visually blend the structures in with their
surroundings (natural and urban).
ii. Reservoirs, pump station buildings, and groundwater wells will use low-reflective
paint and glass.
iii. For portions of pipeline projects installed in naturally vegetated areas, the
disturbance footprints for the pipeline corridor and associated staging areas will be
hydroseeded, following backfilling and recontouring, using a non-irrigated native
plant mix consistent with original site conditions and surrounding vegetation.
iv. For CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and groundwater wells in naturally vegetated
settings, any disturbed unpaved areas following construction will be revegetated
(hydroseeding and/or plantings) using native plant materials consistent with original
site conditions and surrounding vegetation. A temporary irrigation system will be
installed and maintained by OWD, or watering trucks shall be used at a frequency to
be determined by OWD to maintain successful plant growth. Temporary irrigation will
be discontinued upon OWD’s determination that the landscaping has permanently
established, without the need for supplemental watering.
v. For CIP reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater projects in urban settings, any
disturbed unpaved areas following construction will be landscaped using plant
materials consistent with original site conditions and/or surrounding ornamental
vegetation. A permanent irrigation system will be installed and maintained by OWD.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if any of the CIP projects would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Impact Analysis
The County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista General Plans have identified “highly
valued landscapes,“ which for the purpose of this analysis are defined as scenic topographic and aquatic
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-7
November 2016
features, that occur within or adjacent to the planning area. In the following discussion, an evaluation of
the relevant above-ground CIP projects that have the potential to impact a scenic vista is provided. CIP
pipeline projects that are underground and, therefore, will not impact a scenic vista are not included in
the discussion below. In addition to these pipeline projects, Table 4.8-1 identifies CIP projects that would
not feature above-ground structures, or are in areas where development has already occurred, and are
not discussed further.
Table 4.8-1 CIP Projects in Developed Areas
Project No. System Project Description
Capacity (MG)/
Length (ft)
P2058 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Rd - Pioneer/Campo (previously 24-in) 7,900
P2104 Central PL - 12-in, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock Mountain 1,800
P2106 Central PL - 12-in, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Rock Mountain/Otay Valley 4,500
P2107 Central PL - 16-in, 711 Zone, Rock Mtn Road - La Media Road (previously 12-in) 3,800
P2116 Central PL - 16-in, 711 Zone, Rock Mtn Road - SR 125/EastLake Pkwy (previously 12-in) 3,000
P2148 La Presa PL - 16-in, 850 Zone, Jamacha Boulevard - Sweetwater Springs/Trace 5,200
P2150 Central PL - 16-in, 458 Zone, East Palomar Street - Medical Center/Raven 900
P2190 Regulatory PL - 12-in, 1485 Zone, Jamul Highlands 1,500
P2202 Regulatory PS - 1296-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 2,900 to 6,000 gpm 6,450
P2203 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road - Melody (previously 30-in) 3,100
P2204 Regulatory PL - 20-in, 1296 Zone, Pioneer Way - Proctor Valley/1296 Reservoirs
(previously 24-in) 3,100
P2233 La Presa Res - 640-3 Emergency Reservoir, 10.0 MG 10
P2235 Central Res - 624-4 Emergency Reservoir, 30.0 MG (previously 40 MG) 30
P2392 Central PS - Lower Otay PS Replacement and Expansion, from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm 18,000
P2393 La Presa PS - Pointe Hydro Pump Station Expansion, from 240 to 400 gpm 400
P2400 Central PL - 20-in Pipeline Replacement, 711 Zone, Otay Lakes Road at Santa Paula 3,800
P2402 Central PL - 16-in, 624 Zone, La Media Road - Village 7/Otay Valley 6,700
P2412 Regulatory PL - 944/832 PRS Upgrade 944-1 Pump Station Site --
P2437 Central Dis 624-4 Disinfection Facility --
P2482 Otay Mesa Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well System --
P2516 La Presa PL - 12-in, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road - Darby/Osage 2,500
P2517 Hillsdale Helix - Otay Interconnection, Chase Avenue --
P2554 Central 624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue --
P2577 Central PS - 980-2 Pump Station Expansion, from 12,000 to 16,000 gpm 4,000
P2578 Central PS - 711-2 Pump Station (PS 711-1 replacement), from 10,000 to 14,000 gpm 14,000
P2580 Central PL - 12-in, 980 Zone, Bob Pletcher Pkwy 125 Freeway Crossing 1,000
P2582 Central PL - 20-in, 711 Zone, Eastlake Pkwy between Olympic and Birch Upsizing 2,400
P2583 Central PL - 20-in, 624 Zone, Otay Mesa Interconnect 711 PRS Bypass 5,800
P2584 La Presa Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions --
P2589 Otay Mesa PL - 24-in, 871 Zone, Donovan Prison 600
R2037 Central RecPL - 8-in, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Rock Mountain/Hunte Parkway 13,900
R2042 Central RecPL - 8-in, 815 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - SR-125/Eastlake 2,690
R2043 Central RecPL - 8-in, 815 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La Media/SR 125 1,260
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-8
November 2016
Table 4.8-1 CIP Projects in Developed Areas
Project No. System Project Description Capacity (MG)/ Length (ft)
R2084 Central RecPL - 20-in, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media 3,000
R2085 Central RecPL - 20-in, 680 Zone, La Media - State/Olympic 2,840
R2083 Central RecPL - 20-in, 680 Zone Olympic Parkway - Heritage Road 110
R2047 Central RecPL - 12-in, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock Mountain 1,265
R2079 Central RecPL - 6-in, 450 Zone, Otay Valley Road, Entertainment, 680/450 PRS 4,000
San Miguel/Mother Miguel Mountains
The San Miguel and Mother Miguel mountains are located in the central portion of the planning area, and
have peak elevations of 2,565 feet AMSL and 1,512 feet AMSL, respectively (Figure 4.8-2).
P2431: Res 980-4 would be located adjacent to the existing 1090-1 Reservoir, on an undeveloped foothill
at the northern base of San Miguel Mountain.
P4231: Res 980-4 would be within the viewshed of San Miguel Mountain; however, since it would be
placed immediately adjacent to an existing 500-gallon reservoir, the construction of the new reservoir
would not substantially alter the existing viewshed, and with implementation of Aes-PDF-1, the impact to
the scenic vista would be less than significant.
P2002: PS 1296-2 would be located along Proctor Valley Road, although its exact location has not yet
been determined. Proctor Valley Road is a relatively flat undeveloped area with an approximate elevation
of 800 feet AMSL. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed P2002 would be situated approximately
1.5 miles southeast of San Miguel Mountain and approximately three miles east of Mother Miguel
Mountain (Figure 4.8-2). With implementation of Aes-PDF-1, P2002 would not impact this scenic vista.
P2142: Res 1296-4 would be located on an undeveloped hill with an approximate elevation of 1,000 feet
AMSL. P2142 would be situated approximately three miles east of San Miguel Mountain and
approximately five miles east of Mother Miguel Mountain. With implementation of Aes-PDF-1, P2142
would not impact this scenic vista.
P2576: Res 980-5 in the Central Area System would be located just east of P2002 (PS 1296-2) in an
undeveloped hill with an approximate 1,000 feet of elevation. With implementation of Aes-PDF-1, P2576
would not impact this scenic vista.
Jamul Mountains
The Jamul Mountains are located northeast of the Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs, the majority of which
are just outside the central portion of the planning area (Figure 4.8-2). The peak of the Jamul Mountains
is at 1,627 feet AMSL.
P2248: PS 944-1 pump expansion would be located approximately two miles northwest and northeast,
respectively, of the Jamul Mountains. Due to the large distances from these mountains, this CIP project
would not impact this scenic vista.
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
McGinty Mtn
SanMiguel Mtn
MotherMiguelMtn
Jamul Mtn
SweetwaterReservoir
Upper OtayReservoir
Lower OtayReservoir
Otay MtnRockMtnPoggiCanyon
Otay River V alle y
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437 P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
Scenic Resources withing the Planning AreaFigure 4.8-2
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.8-2 Scenic Resources.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-10
November 2016
P2431: Res 980-4 would be located on a lower hilltop at the southwestern base of the Jamul Mountains,
and would be clearly visible to viewers southwest of the reservoir. These viewers would consist of
motorists along Otay Lakes Road and future residents of the planned Rolling Hills Ranch (refer to “Village
13” in Figure 3-2 of this PEIR), which would contain residential, commercial and other uses, as designated
by the Chula Vista Major Project and Redevelopment Areas map (Chula Vista 2002). Due to the view
orientation of drivers along Otay Lakes Road, P2431 (Res 980-4) is not expected to impact the scenic vista
offered by the Jamul Mountains to these motorists. This is because, once constructed, the reservoir would
blend into the overall landscape from the viewpoint of motorists who would tend to focus on the roadway.
If P2431 (Res 980-4) is constructed prior to Rolling Hills Ranch, then it would be a part of the pre-existing
landscape for these viewers, and it would not impact the scenic vista offered by the Jamul Mountains.
However, if it is constructed after Rolling Hills Ranch, then the “starkness” of the new reservoir and
associated grading could result in a significant impact to this scenic vista. Implementation of Aes-PDF-1
would minimize potential visual impacts to a less than significant level.
Sweetwater Reservoir
Sweetwater Reservoir is located approximately 9 miles southeast of the City of San Diego, just outside the
westerly boundary of the planning area (Figure 4.8-2). The 28,100 acre-foot reservoir is formed by the
Sweetwater Dam.
P2584: Demolition of the existing reservoir 657-1 would occur approximately one mile north of
Sweetwater Reservoir. This project involves the removal of the existing reservoir and revegetation of the
project site. No new structures would be constructed; therefore, no visual impacts to this scenic vista
would occur.
P2585: This project would include 2 pump stations in undeveloped native soil about 2 miles north of
Sweetwater Reservoir. The construction of P2585 would minimally impact visual aesthetics of the scenic
vista.
P2407: A proposed pipeline improvement in undisturbed soil; the pipeline will have no visual impacts to
the scenic vista.
P2391: Pump Station Perdue WTP would be constructed immediately west of the Sweetwater Reservoir,
adjacent to the existing Robert A. Perdue WTP. The pump station would be constructed near the water
treatment plant, within OWD facility property. The new pump station would visually blend in with the
existing water treatment plant, which viewers in the area have already grown accustomed to as part of
the landscape. Therefore, no visual impacts to this scenic vista would occur.
McGinty Mountain
McGinty Mountain is a small mountain located in the northeast portion of the planning area (Figure 4.8-
2). The top of the peak has an elevation of 2,135 feet AMSL.
P2256: PS 978-2 would be located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the base of McGinty Mountain,
which contains several hills ranging in elevation from 600 feet AMSL to 800 feet AMSL running along both
sides of the Sweetwater River valley. P2256 would be located at the site of the existing 803-3 Reservoir,
on a small hill with an approximate elevation of 700 feet AMSL. Due to the placement of P2256 on a
hilltop, this project may be visible to some viewers from various angles in the surrounding area. Since this
pump station would be next to an existing reservoir and at a much lower elevation than McGinty
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-11
November 2016
Mountain, and due to the large intervening distance and topography between the pump station and
McGinty Mountain, implementation of P2256 would not impact this scenic vista.
P2379: This project would expand pump station 832-1 in undeveloped terrain that will have minimal
effects on the scenic vista, due to the nature of the construction of the pump station.
Pipelines P2053, P2188, P2195, P2196, P2197, P2198, P2586, and P2587 would be built underground and
therefore will have no impact on scenic vistas.
Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs
The Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs are located approximately 8 miles east of Chula Vista and 20 miles
southeast of San Diego, just outside the central portion of the planning area (Figure 4.8-2). When at
capacity, Upper Otay Reservoir holds 20 surface acres of water, and Lower Otay Reservoir has 1,100
surface acres, a maximum water depth of 137.5 feet, and 25 shoreline miles. Due to their size and
accessibility, these reservoirs are used by Olympic trainers, recreational fishermen, bicyclists and
members of the community.
P2037: Construction of reservoir 980-3 located at the southwestern base of the Jamul Mountains,
approximately one mile northeast of Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs. P2037 would be located on a lower
hilltop within the mountain range. Because the orientation of the views from this reservoir would be
towards the north, away from the Upper and Lower Otay reservoirs, implementation of P2037 would not
impact this scenic vista.
Under the 2015 WFMP Update, the Lower Otay Pump Station would be adjacent to the southwest of the
San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant (OWTP), which is located at the southern tip of Lower Otay
Reservoir, and the following three CIP projects would be located between 1.0 and 1.5 miles southeast of
the Lower Otay Reservoir, within the western foothills of Otay Mountain: Pump station P2083 (PS 870-2),
P2392, and P2579. Storage project P2228 (Res 870-2) is also within the vicinity of southeast Lower Otay
Reservoir. The pump station would be constructed at a lower elevation and down-gradient from the
OWTP and Lower Otay Reservoir; therefore, this CIP project would not impact this scenic vista. Due to the
large distance and intervening topography that exists between the Lower Otay Reservoir, and P2083,
P2392 and P2579, these CIP projects would also not impact this scenic vista.
Poggi Canyon and Rock Mountain
Poggi Canyon and Rock Mountain are located in the City of Chula Vista within the southwest portion of
the planning area, and north of Otay River Valley (Figure 4.8-2). The nearest above-ground CIP project to
Poggi Canyon and Rock Mountain scenic resources would be located approximately three miles to the
southeast (P2482). Due to the large distances from these natural features, this CIP project would not
impact Poggi Canyon or Rock Mountain scenic vistas.
Otay River Valley
Otay River Valley traverses the southwest portion of the planning area extending from the Lower Otay
Reservoir. The nearest CIP projects to the river valley would be P2579 Temporary Lower Otay PS
Rehabilitation and P2392 Lower Otay PS Replacement and Expansion (adjacent to the City of San Diego
OWTP at the southern tip of Lower Otay Reservoir) located about one-half mile to the northeast. Reservoir
P2228 and P2374 (PS 870-2) (adjacent to the Richard J. Donovan State Correctional Facility and East Mesa
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-12
November 2016
Detention Facility within San Diego County) are located about one mile to the southeast. Both projects
would be constructed at higher elevations above the river valley. In addition, a ridgeline with an elevation
of 400 feet AMSL runs between the river valley and the P2374 (PS 870-2) project site at approximately
350 feet AMSL) Due to the large distances from the natural features and intervening topography, these
CIP projects would not impact this scenic vista.
Portions of P2589 and P2451 pipelines would be built in underdeveloped grassland and scrub territory,
but will have no effect on the scenic vista as they will be built and installed underground.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would reduce the visual impacts of P2431 (Res 980-4), P2228 (Res 870-2),
P2392 (LOPS), P2256 (PS 978-2), P2374 (PS 870-2), and P2391 (PS Perdue WTP) on scenic vistas within the
OWD jurisdiction to a less than significant level.
4.8.3.2 Issue 2 – Visual Character and Quality
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of Aes-PDF-1 listed above in Section 4.8.3.1 (Issue 1) includes measures to reduce the
potential impacts to visual character.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if any of the CIP projects would substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the project sites and their surroundings.
Impact Analysis
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would result in temporary and permanent visual impacts.
Temporary visual impacts would occur from construction of CIP projects, primarily through the removal
or alteration of existing vegetation. Construction of CIP projects would involve the disturbance of ground
cover, grading, excavation, material stockpiles, and the presence of construction equipment, all of which
would temporarily degrade the pre-existing visual character at the CIP construction site and its
surroundings. However, these impacts are temporary, and implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would ensure
that all disturbed areas of the construction site remaining after completion of construction would either
be hydroseeded (pipelines in naturally vegetated settings), revegetated (reservoirs and pump stations in
naturally vegetated settings), or landscaped (reservoirs, pump stations, and groundwater wells in urban
settings). All vegetated areas would be irrigated to ensure successful plant establishment. Therefore,
implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would reduce visual impacts associated with CIP construction activities
under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level.
The above-ground CIP projects (i.e., reservoirs, pump stations, and groundwater wells) would result in
varying degrees of long-term, permanent visual impacts, as discussed below. The CIP pipeline projects,
would not result in long-term, permanent visual impacts, as they would be placed underground.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-13
November 2016
Reservoir Projects
Reservoirs are typically the most visible of the CIP projects because the function of these facilities require
them to be located at higher elevations, often on hillsides, hilltops, or ridges. The visual impacts of CIP
reservoir projects would vary depending on the visibility of the project site; the degree of landform
alteration required; the size, color and prominence of the reservoir; and the remaining existing vegetation
or landscaping. Depending on the individual site characteristics, some of the CIP reservoir projects may
be partially buried or located completely underground. In undeveloped areas, the steel or concrete
material of the new reservoir can substantially alter the visual character of the existing natural setting.
Table 4.8-2 lists the CIP reservoir projects that would occur in undeveloped areas.
Table 4.8-2 CIP Reservoir Projects in Undeveloped Areas
Project No. Project Description Capacity (MG)
Phase II (2017-2022) Potable Water Storage
P2040 Res 1655-1 0.5
Phase III (2023-Ultimate) Potable Water Storage
P2142 Res 1296-4 2
P2431 Res 980-4 8
P2576 Res 980-5 2
P2228 Res 870-2 7
MG = million gallons
Reservoir projects may also feature fencing and/or other above-ground appurtenances. Of the CIP
projects listed in Table 4.8-1, P2431 (Res 980-4) will occur adjacent to existing reservoir facilities;
therefore, the visual impacts of these projects may be lessened as viewers are already familiar with the
existing structures within the natural landscape. P2040 (Res 1655-1) would be visible to existing and future
residents of Rancho Jamul Estates. P2142 (Res 1296-4) would be visible to existing residents within the
Whispering Meadows neighborhood approximately one-half mile to the north, and P2431 (Res 980-4)
would be visible to future residents of the planned Rolling Hills Ranch (refer to “Village 13” in Figure 3-2
of this PEIR), which would contain residential, commercial and other uses, as designated by the Chula
Vista Major Project and Redevelopment Areas map (Chula Vista 2002). Due to the view orientation of
drivers along Otay Lakes Road, P2431 would not impact the views of these motorists because, once
constructed, the reservoir would blend into the overall landscape from the viewpoint of motorists who
would tend to focus on the roadway. In addition, implementation of OWD’s standard requirements for
landscaping and using natural color palettes for building materials (Aes-PDF-1) would ensure that the
appearance of the proposed reservoirs, though visible, would not substantially degrade the existing visual
character of the project sites and their surroundings.
Pump Station Projects
Similar to the CIP reservoir projects evaluated above, visual impacts associated with pump station projects
would vary depending on the visibility of the project site, the degree of landform alteration required, the
size of the pump station, and the remaining existing vegetation or landscaping. 2015 WFMP Update CIP
pump station projects that would be constructed in undeveloped regions are discussed individually below.
P2002: As discussed in Section 4.8.3.1 above (Issue 1), the exact location of PS 1296-2 along the unpaved
Proctor Valley Road is not known; however, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed PS 1296-2 would
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-14
November 2016
be situated at the location shown on Figure 4.8-2. In addition, with implementation of Aes-PDF-1, all
disturbed areas of the construction site remaining after completion of construction would be revegetated
and irrigated to ensure successful plant establishment. Because the surrounding area is undeveloped, and
there are no reasonably foreseeable plans for development in this area, PS 1296-2 would not result in a
significant visual impact.
P2248: PS 944-2 is a pump station expansion located in the north portion of the Regulatory System, within
an undeveloped area. The expansion of this pump station will be to upgrade an existing pump station,
therefore the impacts to the existing visual character will be minimal. Disturbed soil areas around the
proposed pump station upgrade will be revegetated and irrigated for successful plant reestablishment.
There will be no substantial visual impacts.
P2256: PS 978-2 is a pump station that would be located at the site of the existing (P2500) 803-3 Reservoir
adjacent to the Sycuan Golf Resort, within an undeveloped area. The addition of this new pump station
would be consistent with existing uses of the site, and would not represent a stark contrast in the
landscape as viewed from visitors to the golf resort. In addition, with implementation of Aes-PDF-1, all
disturbed areas of the construction site remaining after completion of construction would be revegetated
and irrigated to ensure successful plant establishment. Therefore, PS 978-2 would not result in a
significant visual impact.
P2379: PS 832-1 is a pump station upgrade located about 2 miles northeast of Sweetwater Reservoir in
the Regulatory System region, within an undeveloped area. The expansion of this pump station will be to
upgrade an existing pump station, therefore the impacts to the existing visual character will be minimal.
Disturbed soil areas around the proposed pump station upgrade will be revegetated and irrigated for
successful plant reestablishment. There will be no substantial visual impacts.
P2391: This pump station would be constructed directly west of the Sweetwater Reservoir, adjacent to
the existing Robert A. Perdue WTP. The areas surrounding the proposed pump station and the water
treatment facility are undeveloped. The new pump station would be consistent in appearance and scale
with the existing reservoir and treatment plant and would therefore not result in a substantial alteration
of the existing visual character.
P2585: PS 1200-2 is a new pump station that would be constructed a half mile directly north of
Sweetwater Reservoir in an undeveloped scrub vegetated area. With implementation of Aes-PDF-1,
disturbed construction areas would be revegetated and irrigated for successful plant reestablishment.
PS 1200-2 would not result in a significant visual impact.
Water Supply Projects
Of the four water supply projects, two projects have the potential to create visual impacts to the
surrounding areas, which are discussed below.
P2434: The Rancho Del Rey groundwater well would involve constructing a water treatment system to
accompany an existing well located within Chula Vista, near the intersection of Rancho Del Rey Parkway
and Terra Nova Drive. The treatment facility would be constructed within the existing site boundary. The
site is located within a residential neighborhood and directly adjacent to a childcare facility. In addition,
off-site sewer and water lines would be necessary to serve the project. With implementation of Aes-PDF-
1, the new treatment facility would be visually screened with landscaping that is compatible with existing
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-15
November 2016
vegetation. Therefore, the Rancho Del Rey groundwater well would not result in a significant visual
impact.
P2482: The Otay Mesa Lot 7 groundwater well development project would involve constructing a water
treatment system to accompany an existing well located in Otay Mesa and the installation of a distribution
pipeline at the project site. The existing well is located within an industrial area, and the proposed water
treatment facility would be consistent with existing uses of the site, and would be visually consistent with
the land uses surrounding the site. Therefore, the Otay Mesa Lot 7 well would not result in a significant
visual impact.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Aes-PDF-1 and any additional project-specific mitigation measures identified in
subsequent CEQA documentation would reduce visual impacts resulting from construction activities and
design of above-ground CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level.
4.8.3.3 Issue 3 – Lighting and Glare
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of OWD’s standard requirements for using low-glare building materials (Aes-PDF-1)
would ensure that the CIP projects would not result in a source of substantial new light or glare.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if any of the CIP projects would create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the immediate vicinity of the CIP projects. Impacts of
lighting on biological resources are discussed in Section 4.2 (Biological Resources) of this PEIR.
Impact Analysis
It is anticipated that any nighttime lighting associated with reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater
wells would be limited to emergency lighting that would typically be activated only in emergency
situations, such as the repair of a leak that occurs at night. Therefore, none of the above-ground CIP
projects under the 2015 WFMP Update are expected to create a new source of substantial nighttime
lighting that would adversely affect nighttime views.
Potential impacts from glare would primarily occur from the sunlight reflecting from the reservoir, pump
station or groundwater well building surfaces. Daytime views that could be subject to the effects of new
sources of glare would include the following residential, institutional and recreational areas (in the vicinity
of the identified CIP projects): Rancho Jamul Estates (P2040), Whispering Meadows neighborhood
(P2142), Richard J. Donovan State Correctional Facility (P2228), and Sycuan Golf Resort (P2500). However,
with implementation of Aes-PDF-1, low-reflective paint and glass would be used, reducing impacts from
glare to less than significant levels.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-16
November 2016
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with daytime glare from new
reservoirs and pump stations under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level; therefore, no
mitigation is required.
4.8.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would implementation of any CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
A “state scenic highway” refers to any interstate, state, or county road that has been officially designated
as scenic and thereby requires special scenic conservation treatment. No officially designated state scenic
highways occur within the planning area. A portion of SR-125, between I-8 and SR-94, is designated as a
state scenic highway; however, this portion is not within the planning area. SR-94, which does pass
through the planning area, is considered to be an “eligible” state scenic highway although it is not yet
officially designated as such. In addition, the Chula Vista General Plan designates the following scenic
roadway segments within the Central Area System of the planning area:
■ East H Street from I-805 to Mount Miguel Road
■ Proctor Valley Road from Mount Miguel Road east to Jamul
■ Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road from I-805 to Lower Otay Reservoir
■ Olympic Parkway
■ Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Telegraph Canyon Road
P2434 is located just north of the East H Street segment. Existing development is located between the
project and the scenic roadway segments which would screen views of the project from motorists
traveling along these roads. Therefore, implementation of P2434 would not impact views from state
scenic highways or Chula Vista scenic roadways; no further analysis is required.
4.8.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2007. California Scenic Highway and Mapping
System. Accessed April 25, 2016 at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm
City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista). 2005. Chula Vista General Plan. Chapter 5: Land Use and Transportation
Element. December 13.
City of San Diego. 2007. Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Draft General Plan.
Section 3.16: Visual Effects and Neighborhood Character. September.
County of San Diego (County). 2011a. San Diego County General Plan: Crest/Dehesa/Harbison
Canyon/Granite Hills Community Plan. Adopted August 3, 2011.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-17
November 2016
County of San Diego (County). 2011b. San Diego County General Plan: Otay Subregional Plan. Adopted
August 3, 2011.
County of San Diego (County). 2014a. San Diego County General Plan: Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan.
Adopted August 3, 2011. Amended June 18, 2014.
County of San Diego (County). 2014b. San Diego County General Plan: Spring Valley Community Plan.
Adopted August 3, 2011. Amended June 18, 2014.
County of San Diego (County). 2014c. San Diego County General Plan: Sweetwater Community Plan.
Adopted August 3, 2011. Amended June 18, 2014.
HDR. 2004. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Water Resources Master Plan. June
2004.
PBS&J. 2008. Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan Update. October 2008.
Recon. 1996. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Water District Water Resources
Master Plan. May 1996.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.8 Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.8-18
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-1
November 2016
4.9 Land Use and Planning
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to land use and planning; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect,
and/or cumulative) related to these issues resulting from development of CIP projects under the 2015
WFMP Update; and the project design features, standard construction practices, and mitigation/
performance measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts. It should be noted that OWD will consult
with USFWS and CDFW prior to the siting of any facility or pipeline. Wherever possible pipelines will be
located within roads, easement, or disturbed areas and will comply with land use guidelines. Because the
CIP pipelines would be buried, it is not necessary to consider these projects in this land use analysis.
4.9.1 Existing Land Uses
The planning area spans across three major jurisdictional areas: County of San Diego, City of San Diego,
and City of Chula Vista. Because it is not practical to describe the existing land uses within the entire
planning area, this section describes the existing land uses at and surrounding each of the CIP storage,
pump station, water supply, and other CIP miscellaneous projects under the 2015 WFMP Update. The
2015 WFMP Update considers two major timelines or phases for implementation of the recommended
CIP projects: Phase II (2017-2022) and Phase III (2013-2050). The Phase II and III CIPs are listed in Table 3-
1. The recommended projects to be implemented during Phases II and III are summarized below.
4.9.1.1 Potable Water Storage CIP Projects
Regulatory System
P2040: This new reservoir would be located within the Regulatory System of the planning area, within the
Rancho Jamul Estates in San Diego County. The Res 1655-1 site is undeveloped. Although existing homes
within the Rancho Jamul Estates are located approximately 600 feet southeast of the proposed project
site, the Jamul/Dulzura CPA designates multiple rural and semi-rural uses within and surrounding the site
(County 2004a).
P2142: This new reservoir would be located within the Regulatory System of the planning area. Res 1296-
4 would hold 2 MG of water and be constructed within Village 14 in an area that is currently undeveloped.
The new reservoir would be built in an area designated as Open Space and for recreational use.
La Presa System
P2584: Existing reservoirs Res 657-1 and 657-2 currently within La Presa System are to be demolished
during Phase III of project scheduling. The reservoirs are in an area of existing residential land use.
P2233: This new reservoir would be located within the La Presa System of the planning area, adjacent to
the existing 640-1 and 640-2 reservoirs within San Diego County. The Res 640-3 site is currently
undeveloped. Residences and Cuyamaca College are located less than a mile to the west and east of the
site, respectively.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-2
November 2016
Central Area System
P2037: This new reservoir would be located within the Central Area System of the planning area, within
the Village 13 community planning development. The Res 980-3 would be a 4 MG reservoir that would be
built in an area of influence, near the Open Space Preserve. Village 13 is currently undeveloped but is
designated for residential development neighboring the Open Space Preserve.
P2431: This new reservoir would be located within the Central Area System of the planning area, within
Chula Vista. The Res 980-4 site and adjacent areas are undeveloped. However, the Chula Vista Major
Project and Redevelopment Areas Map designates these adjacent areas as the future site of the Rolling
Hills Ranch, which would contain residential, commercial, and other uses (Chula Vista 2002).
P2576: This new reservoir would be located within the Central Area System of the planning area, within
the new residential development of Village 14, near new residential Village 13. The Res 980-5 site and
adjacent areas are undeveloped.
P2228: This new reservoir would be located within the Central Area System of the planning area, to the
southeast of the southern-most portion of Lower Otay Lake. The Res 870-2 site and adjacent areas are
undeveloped.
P2235: This new reservoir would be located within the Central Area System of the planning area, within
the Rolling Hills Ranch residential neighborhood, slightly northwest of the Upper Otay Reservoir. The
Res 624-4 would act as an emergency reservoir. Although existing homes within the Rolling Hills Ranch
residential neighborhood are in near proximity of the proposed project site, the Chula Vista CPA
designates additional Sectional Planning Area uses within and surrounding the site (Chula Vista 2015).
Otay Mesa System
P2228: This new reservoir would be located within the Otay Mesa System of the planning area, adjacent
to the existing 870-1 Reservoir, Richard J. Donovan State Correctional Facility, and East Mesa Detention
Facility within San Diego County. The Res 870-2 site is undeveloped, with the exception of a chlorine
disinfection station that may need to be removed or relocated prior to construction of the 870-2
Reservoir.
4.9.1.2 Potable Water Pump Station CIP Projects
Regulatory System
P2002: This pump station expansion project would be located within the Regulatory System of the
planning area. The 1296-1 pump station would be expanded from 2,900 to 6,000 gpm. The proposed
project site is located in a rural residential area.
P2202: This pump station expansion project would be located within the Regulatory System of the
planning area. The 1296-1 pump station would be expanded from 2,900 to 6,000 gpm. The proposed
project site is located in a mixed use development area.
P2248: This pump station expansion project would be located within the Regulatory System of the
planning area. The 944-1 pump station would be expanded from 3,000 to 6,000 gpm and is currently in
an area that is undeveloped.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-3
November 2016
P2379: This pump station expansion project would be located within the Regulatory System of the
planning area. The 832-1 pump station would be expanded from 3,000 to 6,000 gpm and is currently in
an area that is undeveloped.
La Presa System
P2393: This pump station expansion project would be placed within the La Presa System. The Pointe Hydro
Pump Station would be expanded from 240 to 400 gpm. The proposed project site is one mile north of
Sweetwater Reservoir in a mixed use developed area.
P2585: This new pump station would be located within the La Presa System of the planning area. The
1200-2 pump station site is currently in an area that is undeveloped.
Hillsdale System
P2256: This new pump station would be located within the Hillsdale System of the planning area, adjacent
to the existing 803-3 Reservoir within San Diego County. The 978-2 site is undeveloped and surrounded
by coastal scrub vegetation near the Sycuan Golf Resort.
Central Area System
P2391: This new pump station would be located within the Central Area to La Presa System of the planning
area, adjacent to the existing Robert A. Perdue Water Treatment Facility and the Sweetwater Reservoir
within San Diego County. The Perdue WTP pump station site would be located on OWD facility property.
The area surrounding the site is undeveloped and surrounded by coastal scrub vegetation but near a
developed area.
P2577: This pump station expansion project would be located within the Central Area System about 2
miles west of the Lower Otay Lake. The 980-2 pump station would be expanded from 12,000 to 16,000
gpm. The proposed project site is in an area currently designated as developed residential land use in
Chula Vista.
P2578: The existing 711-1 pump station would be replaced by a new pump station located in the Central
Area System of the planning area. The 711-2 pump station would be expanded from 10,000 to 14,000
gpm. The proposed project site is in an area currently designated as developed residential land use in
Chula Vista.
P2392: This new pump station would be located within the Central Area System of the planning area,
adjacent to the existing LOPS (operated by the OWD) and southwest of the Otay Water Treatment Plant,
which is owned and operated by the City of San Diego. The area surrounding the site is undeveloped. In
addition, lands to the west of this project site are designated “Conserved (Subject to Agreement with
Wildlife Agencies)” in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. These “Conserved” areas are included within
the USFWS San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Otay-Sweetwater Unit, and the Otay Valley
Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan.
P2579: The temporary pump station would be placed a quarter mile southwest of Lower Otay Lake within
the Central Area System of the planning area. The temporary LOPS rehabilitation site is surrounded by
undeveloped coastal scrub territory. The region is under mixed land use, some developed, and residential
land use.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-4
November 2016
4.9.2 Regulatory Framework
4.9.2.1 State
According to Section 53091 of the California Government Code, building and zoning ordinances (and by
inference the planning policies of local land use agencies) do not apply to the location or construction of
facilities used for the production, generation, storage, or transmission of water. Nevertheless, a discussion
of the plans and policies that support the provision of water infrastructure is provided below.
4.9.2.2 Local
San Diego County Water Authority Act
The OWD is a member agency of the SDCWA, which is governed primarily by the County Water Authority
Act (Stats. 1943, c. 545). This Act mandates the SDCWA to provide water to meet the needs of member
agencies in its service area. As defined under Section 53091 of the California Government Code, the
SDCWA and its member agencies, including OWD, are not subject to local land use plans, policies, and
ordinances; however, for the purposes of CEQA analysis, local land use planning documents are addressed
in this PEIR.
County of San Diego General Plan
The County of San Diego General Plan identifies long-range goals and policies for the comprehensive
development of land within its jurisdiction. The following six specific elements are included within the
County General Plan: Land Use, Conservation and Open Space, Mobility, Housing, Safety and Noise. The
County of San Diego subdivides its jurisdictional area into Subregional Plan Areas and CPAs, five of which
reside within the WFMP planning area (refer to Figure 4.8-1 of this PEIR). Subregional and community
plans are used to focus the General Plan goals and policies to the specific or unique circumstances existing
in individual communities throughout the county. Each community plan incorporates the goals and
policies developed by the community to ensure that they will be compatible with those found in the
General Plan. Subregional and community plans relevant to the WFMP planning area are discussed below.
Crest/Dehesa/Harbison Canyon/Granite Hills Community Plan
The Crest-Dehesa CPA is approximately 33 square miles in size and encompasses the communities of
Crest, Granite Hills, Dehesa, and Harbison Canyon. The autonomous Sycuan Indian Reservation also
resides within the geographic boundary of this CPA. The relevant land use policies for this CPA are
contained in the Crest-Dehesa/Harbison Canyon/Granite Hills Community Plan, which was adopted on
August 3, 2011. The following policies from the Circulation and Mobility and Safety chapters of this
community plan support the provision of water infrastructure:
■ Circulation and Mobility Goal CM 7.1 – the Infrastructure and Utilities subsection states that all
sufficient quantities of imported water shall be available for all development planned within the
boundaries of the SDCWA.
Policy CM 7.1.1 under the Infrastructure and Utilities subsection states that coordination is
required for the delivery of imported water service to Dehesa, along with the provision of
infrastructure adequately sized so that service cam be provided to all land within the SDCWA
in a cost effective manner.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-5
November 2016
Policy CM 7.1.2 under the Infrastructure and Utilities subsection states that high water use
activities, such as golf courses, shall be designed to minimize the need for irrigation and to
use recycled water. Limit the area or irrigated landscaping for a new golf course to the
fairways.
■ Safety Goal S 1.1 – the Wildlife Fire/Urban Fire subsection states that loss of life and property
from unique fire hazard potential shall be minimized within the community area.
Policy S.1.1 under the Wildlife Fire/Urban Fire subsection states that new development
utilizing imported water are required to provide infrastructure for fire suppression, such as
pipes and hydrants, in accordance with prevailing standards.
Jamul-Dulzura Subregional Plan
This CPA covers approximately 168 square miles and contains several small communities, including Jamul,
Steel Canyon, Dulzura, and Barrett Junction. The relevant land use policies for this CPA are contained in
the Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan, which was originally adopted on December 19, 1979, amended on
January 11, 1995, and was readopted on August 3, 2011 with the General Plan Update. The following
policies from the Conservation Chapter of this subregional plan support the provision of water
infrastructure:
■ Conservation Goal 5 – the Conservation Chapter states that environmental resources in the
Jamul/Dulzura area shall be carefully managed to maintain them for future needs.
Policy 3 under Goal 5 states that strict controls over land use in areas not served by imported
water should be supported in order to ensure the long-term availability of groundwater
resources. When necessary, groundwater survey reports should be required and should meet
the minimum standards specified in the County Groundwater Ordinance.
Policy 4 under Goal 5 states that a large scale groundwater study in the Jamul/Dulzura
Subregional Plan to clearly evaluate the capabilities of the local groundwater supply should
be prepared at the earliest possible date.
Otay Subregional Plan
This CPA covers an area of approximately 23,000 acres within southern San Diego County, encompassing
portions of Otay, Jamul/Dulzura, Proctor Valley, and the San Ysidro Mountain area. The relevant land use
policies for this CPA are contained in the Otay Subregional Plan, which was originally adopted on May 18,
1983, amended on July 27, 1994, and was readopted on August 3, 2011 with the General Plan Update.
The following policy from the Public Services and Facilities Element of this subregional plan supports the
provision of water infrastructure:
■ Policy 3 under the Resolve Water Demand and Supply subsection states that the county will
encourage and support studies with the intent of determining the CPA’s ultimate water demand,
the most logical service provider, cooperation between agencies, and the use of reclaimed water.
Sweetwater Community Plan
This CPA covers portions of unincorporated San Diego County south of SR-54, east of I-805 (with a minimal
portion west of I-805), north of Chula Vista, and west of the Jamul-Dulzura CPA (refer to Figure 4.8-1 of
this PEIR). It is approximately 8,000 acres in size. The relevant land use policies for this CPA are contained
in the Sweetwater Community Plan, which was originally adopted on August 25, 1977, amended on
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-6
November 2016
October 28, 1993, and was readopted on August 3, 2011 with the General Plan Update. The following
policy from the Public Facilities Element of this community plan supports the provision of water
infrastructure:
■ Policy 9 encourages optimum water and sewer reclamation and water conservation.
Spring Valley Community Plan
This CPA encompasses a geographic area of approximately 11 square miles within unincorporated San
Diego County and includes the neighborhoods of Bancroft, Brookside, Spring Valley, Lakeside, La Presa,
Dictionary Hill, Rancho San Diego, and Sweetwater Village. The relevant land use policies for this CPA are
contained in the Spring Valley Community Plan, which was originally adopted on May 15, 1989, and
amended most recently on June 18, 2014. This community plan does not contain any relevant policies
that support the provision of water infrastructure.
City of San Diego General Plan
The City of San Diego General Plan was originally adopted in 1979, and recently amended in 2015. The
recently amended version of this General Plan was completed utilizing sustainable design principles
referred to as the “City of Villages” strategy. This strategy involves integrating a new element into the City
General Plan (the Strategic Framework Element), including the Mobility, Urban Design, Economic
Prosperity, Public Facilities, Services and Safety, Recreation, Conservation, Noise, and Historic
Preservation elements. The main goal of the recently amended version of the City General Plan is to guide
development and growth within the city over the next 20 years, and reverse or at least slow trends of
sprawl such that the city’s various communities become more linked through transportation corridors.
The south-central portion of the WFMP planning area is within the jurisdiction of the City of San Diego.
The City General Plan has several policies that support the provision of water infrastructure. All of these
policies are included within the Public Facilities, Services and Safety Element and are listed below for
reference:
■ PF H.1. Optimize the use of imported water supplies and improve reliability by increasing
alternative water sources to: provide adequate water supplies for present uses; accommodate
future growth; attract and support commercial and industrial development; and supply local
agriculture.
a. Prepare, implement, and maintain, long-term comprehensive water supply plans and options
in cooperation with the appropriate state and federal agencies, regional authorities, water
utilities, and local governments.
b. Develop, coordinate, facilitate, and implement water conservation plans and projects that are
sustainable in reducing water demands.
e. Continue to develop the recycled water customer base, and expand the distribution system
to meet current and future demands.
g. Optimize storage, treatment and distribution capacity of potable water systems.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-7
November 2016
■ PF H.2. Provide and maintain essential water storage, treatment, supply facilities and
infrastructure to serve existing and future development.
■ PF H.3. Coordinate land use planning and water infrastructure planning with local, state, and
regional agencies to provide for future development, maintain adequate service levels, and
develop water supply options during emergency situations.
City of Chula Vista General Plan
The Chula Vista General Plan was comprehensively updated in December 2005. It includes the following
six elements: Land Use and Transportation, Economic Development, Housing, Public Facilities and
Services, Environmental, and Growth Management. The southwest portion of the planning area is within
Chula Vista. The Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan includes the following policies
that support the provision of water infrastructure:
■ PFS 1.1. Coordinate with water districts by providing growth forecast information to allow the
districts to plan and design water facilities and ensure adequate supply needed to accommodate
anticipated growth.
■ PFS 1.5. Accelerate infrastructure upgrades throughout the city, especially in older portions of
western Chula Vista, as growth places additional demands on existing, potentially sub-standard
facilities.
■ PFS 3.4. Encourage the development of new technologies and the use of new sources to meet the
long-term water demands in Chula Vista.
Multiple Species Conservation Programs
Portions of the WFMP planning area occur within the planning areas of the County of San Diego, City of
Chula Vista, and City of San Diego MSCPs (refer to Figure 4.2-2 of this PEIR). MSCPs are regional
conservation plans designed to establish connected preserve systems to ensure long-term survival of
sensitive plant and animal species, and to protect the native vegetation communities in which they are
located. MSCPs address potential impacts of urban growth, natural habitat loss, and species
endangerment, and create plans to mitigate for the potential loss of sensitive species and their habitats.
Each jurisdiction has its own subarea plan which describes specific implementing mechanisms for the
MSCPs.
The County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan was approved in October 1997. The City of San Diego MSCP
Subarea Plan (approved in July 1997) covers 582,243 acres and encompasses 11 city jurisdictions, portions
of unincorporated San Diego County, and a few special districts. The City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea
Plan was approved and adopted in May 2003. As depicted on Figure 4.2-2 of this PEIR, the “Conserved”
areas (County of San Diego and City of Chula Vista MSCPs) shown in pink, “Hardline Preserve” (City of San
Diego MSCP) areas shown in green, and the “Pre-Approved Mitigation” (City of San Diego MSCP) areas
shown in purple, represent the protected open space reserves within the WRMP planning area to which
the respective agencies’ MSCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines would apply (refer to Section 4.9.3.1
below).
Both the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego NWR and the OVRP encompass portions of “Conserved”
areas identified in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, generally located along the Otay River Valley in the
southwest portion of the planning area. The entire San Diego NWR comprises 44,000 acres and contains
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-8
November 2016
important preserves of coastal sage and chaparral habitats. The OVRP Concept Plan is a multi-
jurisdictional preserve planning effort between the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of
San Diego. The OVRP would extend about 11 miles between the southeast edge of the salt ponds at San
Diego Bay and the Lower Otay Reservoir, including lands surrounding both Lower and Upper Otay
reservoirs. The concept plan is intended to complement the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and San Diego
NWR, and provide policy direction for coordinated land acquisition and development of the OVRP.
OWD is not a signatory to the implementing agreements of any of the above-mentioned MSCP subarea
plans but generally complies with the requirements of the Plans.
4.9.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.9.3.1 Issue 1 – Conflicts with Habitat Conservation and
Natural Communities Conservation Plans
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following PDFs
to reduce potential impacts associated with conflicts with HCPs or NCCPs.
LU-PDF-1 The design of CIP reservoirs, pump stations and water supply projects located within and
adjacent to the “Conserved (Subject to Agreement with Wildlife Agencies)” areas under
the County of San Diego MSCP (refer to Figure 4.2-2 of this PEIR) will incorporate the
following guidelines:
i. Plant materials used for landscaping will consist of native species similar/compatible
with the adjacent habitat, and those species should be based on plants with genetic
materials of the area.
ii. Fencing will be installed along the reserve boundary to prevent uncontrolled human
access.
iii. Lighting within 100 feet of reserve boundary will be confined to areas necessary for
public safety.
LU-PDF-2 The design of CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and water supply projects located within and
adjacent to the “Hardline Preserve” and “Pre-Approved Mitigation” areas under the City
of San Diego MSCP (refer to Figure 4.2-2 of this PEIR) will incorporate the following
guidelines:
i. Drainage will be directed away from the reserves so as to avoid the release of toxins,
chemicals, and petroleum products in storm water runoff that might degrade or harm
the natural environment or ecosystem processes.
ii. Barriers (e.g., non-invasive vegetation, rocks/boulders, fences, walls, and/or signage)
will be installed along the reserve boundary to prevent uncontrolled human access.
iii. Plant materials used for landscaping will consist of native species similar/compatible
with the adjacent habitat, and those species should be based on plants with genetic
materials of the area.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-9
November 2016
iv. Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the reserves shall be directed away from
the preserve wherever possible.
v. Manufactured slopes associated with site development shall be included within the
development footprint for projects within or adjacent to the reserve.
LU-PDF-3 The design of CIP reservoirs, groundwater wells, pump stations, and water supply projects
located within and adjacent to the “Conserved” areas under the City of Chula Vista MSCP
(refer to Figure 4.2-2 of this PEIR) will incorporate the following guidelines:
i. Through the use of detention basins, drainage will not be discharged directly into the
reserves so as to avoid the release of toxins, chemicals, and petroleum products in
storm water runoff that might degrade or harm the natural environment or
ecosystem processes.
ii. Plant materials used for landscaping will consist of native species that reflect the
adjacent native habitat, and non-native plant species will not be introduced into
landscaped areas adjacent to the reserves.
iii. Barriers (fencing, rock/boulders, vegetation) and/or signage will be installed to direct
public access to appropriate locations.
iv. Lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the reserves shall be directed away from
the preserve wherever possible.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it would conflict with any applicable HCPs or NCCPs.
Impact Analysis
As described in Section 4.9.1.1 above, P2002 would be located within the Jamul Mountain Ecological
Reserve under the County of San Diego MSCP. In addition, the following CIP projects under the 2015
WFMP Update would be located within or adjacent to the MSCP preserves identified in Figure 4.2-2 of
this PEIR: P2379, P2248, P2412, P2411, P2202, P2393, P2431, P2142, P2576, P2002, P2037, P2579, P2392,
and 2228. In addition, lands to the west of LOPS are designated “Conserved (Subject to Agreement with
Wildlife Agencies)” in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. These “Conserved” areas are included within
the Otay-Sweetwater Unit of the San Diego NWR and the OVRP Concept Plan. However, implementation
of LU-PDF-1 through LU-PDF-3, Noi-PDF-1, and mitigation measure Bio-1C would incorporate the
respective land use adjacency guidelines of the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego
MSCP Subarea Plans, including but not limited to, landscaping with native plants indigenous to the area;
fencing or other barriers to prevent uncontrolled human access; installation of drainage features to
prevent discharge of stormwater runoff pollutants; installation of acoustical louvers in pump station
buildings to reduce operational noise levels; and temporary noise walls or berms to reduce construction
noise levels. Although the LOPS project site is not located within the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, it
would nevertheless be considered a “conditionally compatible use” under the plan, and would therefore
not preclude habitat preservation or recreational uses identified within adjacent areas of the San Diego
NWR or OVRP. Therefore, implementation of LU-PDF-1 through LU-PDF-3, Noi-PDF-1, and mitigation
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-10
November 2016
measure Bio-1C would reduce potential indirect impacts to biological resources in and adjacent to the
MSCP reserves, and potential conflicts with these HCPs/NCCPs, to below a level of significance.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of LU-PDF-1 through LU-PDF-3, Noi-PDF-1, and mitigation measure Bio-1C would reduce
potential indirect impacts to biological resources in adjacent MSCP reserves, and potential conflicts with
applicable HCPs and NCCPs resulting from construction, development and long-term operations of CIP
projects under the 2015 WFMP Update to a less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.9.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2009 WRMP Update
Would implementation of any of the CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update physically divide
an established community?
The following CIP projects would be implemented in undeveloped areas and thus would not divide an
already established community: P2037, P2040, P2142, P2228, P2233, P2002, P2256, P2585, P2202, P2248,
and P2379. The following CIP projects would be implemented on OWD property adjacent to existing OWD
facilities, and thus would not divide an established community: P2391 and P2392. Therefore, no further
analysis is required.
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update conflict with any 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?
Subsections (d) and (e) within Section 53901 of the California Government Code state that local agency
building and zoning ordinances (and by inference the planning policies of local land use agencies) do not
apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or
transmission of water. Therefore, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation of the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, or City of Chula Vista.
Furthermore, as outlined in Section 4.9.2.2 above, there are many policies within these agency general
plans that support the provision of water infrastructure. Therefore, no further analysis is required.
4.9.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
City of Chula Vista. 2002. Major Projects and Redevelopment Areas. October. Accessed from
www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Administrative_Services/ITS/Images/mjrproj1.pdf
City of Chula Vista. 2015. General Plan. Amended March as per latest resolution 2014-233.
City of San Diego. 2015. General Plan. Amended June as per latest resolution R-309817.
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2011a. Crest/Dehesa/Harbison
Canyon/Granite Hills Community Plan. August 3, 2011 (with latest amendments adopted
November 2015).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-11
November 2016
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2011b. Spring Valley Community
Plan. August 3, 2011 (with latest amendments adopted June 2014).
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2011c. Sweetwater Community
Plan. August 3, 2011 (with latest amendments adopted June 2014).
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2011d. Otay Subregional Plan.
August 3, 2011.
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2011e. Jamul/Dulzura Subregional
Plan. August 3, 2011 (with latest amendments adopted June 2014).
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2011f. Land Use Element, San
Diego County General Plan. August 2011 (with latest amendments adopted November 2015).
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2014. Jamul/Dulzura Community
Planning Area. June 2014. Accessed from
www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/gpupdate/comm/jamul.html
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2015. Spring Valley Community
Planning Area. November 2015. Accessed from
www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/gpupdate/comm/springvly.html
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.9 Land Use and Planning
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.9-12
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-1
November 2016
4.10 Noise
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WRMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to noise; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative)
related to these issues resulting from development of CIP projects under the 2015 WRMP Update; and
the project design features, standard construction practices, and mitigation/performance measures to
reduce or avoid the identified impacts. Refer to Section 4.2 (Biological Resources) of this PEIR for a
discussion of potential noise impacts associated with noise-sensitive avian species.
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
4.10.1.1 Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound. Sound pressure magnitude is measured and quantified
using a logarithmic ratio of pressures, the scale of which gives the level of sound in decibels (dB). Sound
pressures in the environment have a wide range of values and the sound pressure level was developed as
a convenience in describing this range as a logarithm of the sound pressure. To be consistent throughout
the world, the sound pressure level is the logarithm of the ratio of the unknown sound pressure to an
agreed upon reference quantity of the same kind. To account for the pitch of sounds and the
corresponding sensitivity of human hearing to them, the raw sound pressure level is adjusted with an A-
weighting scheme based on frequency that is stated in units of decibels (dBA).
A given level of noise may be more or less tolerable depending on the sound level, duration of exposure,
character of the noise sources, the time of day during which the noise is experienced, and the activity
affected by the noise. For example, noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which
occurs during the day because sleep may be disturbed. Additionally, rest at night is a critical requirement
in the recovery from exposure to high noise levels during the day. In consideration of these factors,
different measures of noise exposure have been developed to quantify the extent of the effects
anticipated from these activities. For example, some indices consider the 24-hour noise environment of a
location by using a weighted average to estimate its habitability on a long term basis. Other measures
consider portions of the day and evaluate the nearby activities affected by it as well as the noise sources.
The most commonly used indices for measuring community noise levels are the Equivalent Energy Level
(Leq), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).
■ Leq, the Equivalent Energy Level, is the average acoustical or sound energy content of noise,
measured during a prescribed period, such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour, or 8 hours. It is the
decibel sound level that contains an equal amount of energy as a fluctuating sound level over a
given period of time.
■ CNEL, Community Noise Equivalent Level, is the average equivalent A-weighted sound level over
a 24-hour period. This measurement applies weights to noise levels during evening and nighttime
hours to compensate for the increased disturbance response of people at those times. CNEL is
the equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period with a +5 dBA weighting applied to all sound
occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA weighting applied to all sound
occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-2
November 2016
The decibel level of sound decreases (or attenuates) exponentially as the distance from the source of the
sound increases. For a single point source such as a piece of mechanical equipment, the sound level
normally decreases by about 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. Sound that originates
from a linear, or “line” source such as a heavily traveled traffic corridor, attenuates by approximately
3 dBA per doubling of distance, provided that the surrounding site conditions lack ground effects or
obstacles that either scatter or reflect noise. Noise from roadways in environments with major ground
effects due to vegetation and loose soils may either absorb or scatter the sound yielding attenuation rates
as high as 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance. Other contributing factors that affect sound reception
include meteorological conditions and the presence of manmade obstacles such as buildings and sound
barriers.
Noise has a significant effect on the quality of life. An individual’s reaction to a particular noise depends
on many factors such as the source of the noise, its loudness relative to the background noise level, and
the time of day. The reaction to noise can also be highly subjective; the perceived effect of a particular
noise can vary widely among individuals in a community. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound
must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA
change in community noise levels is perceivable, while 1 to 2 dBA changes generally are not perceived.
Although the reaction to noise may vary, it is clear that noise is a significant component of the
environment, and excessively noisy conditions can affect an individual’s health and well-being. The effects
of noise are often only transitory, but adverse effects can be cumulative with prolonged or repeated
exposure. The effects of noise on a community can be organized into six broad categories: sleep
disturbance; permanent hearing loss; human performance and behavior; social interaction of
communication; extra-auditory health effects; and general annoyance.
Community noise environments are typically represented by noise levels measured for brief periods
throughout the day and night, or during a 24-hour period (i.e., by DNL/Ldn or CNEL). The one-hour period
is especially useful for characterizing noise caused by short-term events, such as operation of construction
equipment or concert noise (i.e., with Leq). Community noise levels are generally perceived as quiet when
the Ldn is below 50 dBA, moderate in the 50 to 60 dBA Ldn range, and loud above 60 dBA Ldn. Urban
residential areas are usually above 65 dBA Ldn. Along major thoroughfares, roadside noise levels are
typically between 65 and 75 dBA Ldn.
4.10.1.2 Fundamentals of Environmental Vibration
Vibration consists of waves transmitted through solid material (Baranek and Ver 1992). Ground-borne
vibration propagates from the source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves.
Vibration may be comprised of a single pulse, a series of pulses, or a continuous oscillatory motion. The
frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it is oscillating, measured in Hertz (Hz). The normal
frequency range of most ground-borne vibration that can be felt generally starts from a low frequency of
less than 1 Hz to a high of about 200 Hz.
Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease
with distance away from the source. Ambient and source vibration are often expressed in terms of the
peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean square (RMS) velocity in inches per second (in/sec) that
correlates best with human perception. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) estimates that the
threshold of perception is approximately 0.0001 in/sec RMS and the level at which continuous vibrations
begins to annoy people is approximately 0.001 in/sec RMS (FTA 2006).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-3
November 2016
Ground-borne vibration can be a concern for nearby neighbors of a transit system route or maintenance
facility, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to airborne noise, ground-
borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as
buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of
ground-borne vibration are trains, buses on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, pile-
driving and operating heavy earth-moving equipment.
The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of building structures is referred to as ground-borne noise.
The annoyance potential of ground-borne noise is usually characterized with the A-weighted sound level,
which is intended to represent the response of the human ear. However, there are potential problems
when characterizing low-frequency noise using A-weighting, because human hearing causes sounds
dominated by low-frequency components to seem louder than broadband sounds that have the same A-
weighted level. This is accounted for by setting the limits for ground-borne noise lower than would be the
case for broadband noise. Other weighting schemes may be used in other jurisdictions. For example, a
jurisdiction with a higher existing level of vibration may use the alternate C-weighting curve, which is a
more accurate representation of human response at very high or very low frequencies than the A-
weighting curve (Brüel & Kjær 2000).
4.10.1.3 Existing Noise Conditions
The following discussion describes transportation noise sources, operational noise sources that comprise
the existing noise environment within the planning area.
Roadways
Traffic on roadways is the most substantial and common source of noise within the OWD planning area.
The number and type of roads vary within the OWD planning area. In general, the northern portion of the
planning area is dominated by local roads and state highways that connect widely spaced development.
The western and southern portions of the planning area contain a denser roadway network consisting of
major arterials and local roads, as well as interstate and state highways, to support the higher density
residential, commercial and industrial development in these areas. Major highways include I-805 (along
the western border), SR-11, SR-94, SR-125, and SR-905. SR-94 is located in the northeastern portion of the
planning area, while SR-125 and SR-905 serve the southern portion of the planning area. Local and private
roads serve lower speed, lower volume traffic and subsequently feature lower roadway noise levels.
Aviation
The OWD planning area is located within two miles of one public airport and one private airstrip. Brown
Field Municipal Airport is located just outside the eastern border of the OWD planning area, within the
city of San Diego (Figure 4.10-1). Located north of the U.S./Mexico international border, Brown Field
airport is a port-of-entry into the United States for private air craft coming from Mexico into California.
Brown Field is also heavily used by military and law enforcement agencies. John Nichol’s Field, a private
airstrip, is located within the OWD planning area, approximately 10 miles east of Chula Vista (Figure 4.10-
1). This airstrip is owned by San Diego Air Sports Center, and is the home field for the San Diego Ultralight
Association, servicing primarily parachutes and ultralight aircraft. In addition, there is one privately owned
heliport located within the western portion of the OWD planning area, located within the city of San Diego
(Figure 4.10-1).
!Ä
!Ä
!Ä
!Ã
!Ã
!Ã
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U
S
A
M
E
X
I
C
O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä
!"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
JohnNicholsFiled
GillespieField
Brown Field
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 Miscellaneous
!Ä Airport
!Ã Heliport
PipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
Public and Private Airports Figure 4.10-1
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure 4.10-1 Airports.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-5
November 2016
Operational Noise Sources
Noise associated with commercial and industrial operations can include on-site machinery operation,
outdoor truck activity, air compressors, and/or generators. The degree of noise generated by commercial
or industrial uses is dependent upon various factors, including type of industrial activity, hours of
operation, and the location relative to other land uses. Agricultural noise sources that generate the
highest sound levels are chainsaws, crop dusting aircraft, and tractors. In addition, operation of exterior
exhaust and cooling system equipment typically used in greenhouse operations can be a source of noise
that may affect surrounding land uses.
4.10.1.4 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLU) include areas where an excessive amount of noise would interfere with
normal activities. Primary NSLU include residential uses, public and private educational facilities,
hospitals, convalescent homes, hotels/motels, daycare facilities, and passive recreational parks. Sleep
disturbance is the most critical concern for a NSLU on a 24-hour basis or longer compared to activities
that are occupied only a portion of a day.
The OWD planning area spans across three major jurisdictional areas: County of San Diego, City of San
Diego, and City of Chula Vista. NSLU are located throughout the planning area. For a detailed description
of the land uses surrounding each CIP project, please refer to Section 4.9, Land Use. The majority of
pipeline CIPs are located within 0.25 mile of residential land use. Above-ground CIPs that are located in
close proximity (less than one-quarter of a mile) to residential land uses are identified in Table 4.10-1 and
4.10-2.
4.10.1.5 Vibration-Sensitive Land Uses
Vibration-sensitive land uses include buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the
building, such as vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing, hospitals with vibration-sensitive
equipment, and university research operations. The degree of sensitivity to vibration depends on the
specific equipment that would be affected by the vibration. Electron microscopes and high-resolution
lithography equipment function within certain scientific and manufacturing tolerances that can be
compromised in high vibration environments. Residential uses are also sensitive to excessive levels of
vibration of either a regular or intermittent nature.
Table 4.10-1 Potable Water Storage CIP Projects within 0.25 mile of Residential
Project No. System Project Description Land Use Jurisdiction
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2040 Regulatory Res - 1655-1 Reservoir, 0.5 MG County of San Diego
Phase IIIA (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2584 La Presa Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions County of San Diego
Phase IIIB (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required without Assumed New Supply Source(s)
P2233 La Presa Res - 640-3 Emergency Reservoir, 10.0 MG County of San Diego
P2235 Central Res - 624-4 Emergency Reservoir, 30.0 MG (previously 40 MG) City of Chula Vista
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-6
November 2016
Table 4.10-2 Potable Water Pump Station CIP Projects within 0.25 mile of Residential
Project No. System Project Description Land Use Jurisdiction
Phase II (2017 - 2022)
P2393 La Presa PS - Pointe Hydro Pump Station Expansion, from 240 to 400 gpm County of San Diego
Phase IIIA (2023 - 2050) – Projects Required Under Baseline Supply Assumptions
P2256 Hillsdale PS - 978-2 Pump Station, 1,500 gpm County of San Diego
P2391 Central to
La Presa PS - Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm County of San Diego
P2577 Central PS - 980-2 Pump Station Expansion, from 12,000 to 16,000 gpm City of Chula Vista
P2578 Central PS - 711-2 (PS 711-1 replacement), from 10,000 to 14,000 gpm City of Chula Vista
P2585 La Presa PS - 1200-2 Pump Station, 1,000 gpm County of San Diego
P2202 Regulatory PS - 1296-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 2,900 to 6,000 gpm County of San Diego
P2248 Regulatory PS - 944-1 Pump Station Expansion, from 3,000 to 6,000 gpm County of San Diego
4.10.2 Regulatory Framework
4.10.2.1 Federal
Federal Transit Administration Standards
Although the FTA standards are intended for federally funded proposed mass transit projects, the impact
assessment procedures and criteria included in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
(May 2006) are routinely used for projects proposed by local jurisdictions.
4.10.2.2 State
California Noise Control Act of 1973
Sections 46000 – 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control
Act of 1973, finds that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that
exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also
finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural
areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect
the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy
of the State to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or
welfare.
4.10.2.3 Local
San Diego County Noise Ordinance
The San Diego County Noise Ordinance establishes prohibitions for disturbing, excessive, or offensive
noise, and provisions such as sound level limits for the purpose of securing and promoting the public
health, comfort, safety, peace, and quiet for its citizens. Planned compliance with sound level limits and
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-7
November 2016
other specific parts of the ordinance allows presumption that the noise is not disturbing, excessive, or
offensive. Limits are specified depending on the zoning placed on a property (e.g., varying densities and
intensities of residential, industrial and commercial zones). Where two adjacent properties have different
zones, the sound level limit at a location on a boundary between two properties is the arithmetic mean
of the respective limits for the two zones, except for extractive industries. It is unlawful for any person to
cause or allow the creation of any noise that exceeds the applicable limits of the Noise Ordinance at any
point on or beyond the boundaries of the property on which the sound is produced. Table 4.10-3 shows
the allowable noise levels and corresponding times of day for each zoning designation.
Table 4.10-3 San Diego County Exterior Noise Standards
Zone(1) Limit One-Hour dBA(2) Time Period
(1) R-S, R-D, R-R, R-MH, A-70, A-72, S-80, S-81, S-90, S-92, R-V,
and R-U Use Regulations with a density of less than 11 dwelling
units per acre.
50 dBA
45 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
(2) R-RO, R-C, R-M, S-86, FB-V5, RV, AND R-U Use Regulations
with a density of 11 or more dwelling units per acre.
55 dBA
50 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
(3) S-94, FB-V4, AL-V2, AL-V1, AL-CD, RM-V5, RM-V4, RM-V3, RM-
CD and all commercial zones.
60 dBA
55 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
(4) V1, V2 60 dBA
55 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
V1 55 dBA 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
V2 50 dBA 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
V3 70 dBA
65 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
(5) M-50, M-52, M-54 70 dBA Anytime
(6) S-82, M-56, and M-58. 75 dBA Anytime
(7) S-88(3) See below
(1) Refer to the San Diego County Zoning Ordinance for a list of zones represented by the abbreviations in this table. Online
URL:www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dplu/zoning/index.html
(2) If the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable limit, the allowable one-hour average sound level shall be
the one-hour average ambient noise level, plus three decibels. The ambient noise level shall be measured when the
alleged noise violation source is not operating.
(3) S-88 zones are Specific Planning Areas which allow different uses. The sound level limits that apply in an S-88 zone
depend on the use being made of the property. The limits in subsection (1) apply to property with a residential,
agricultural or civic use. The limits in subsection (3) apply to property with a commercial use. The limits in subsection (5)
apply to property with an industrial use that would only be allowed in an M50, M52 or M54 zone. The limits in
subsection (6) apply to all property with an extractive use or a use that would only be allowed in an M56 or M58 zone.
Source: County 2009
Sections 36.408 through 36.411 of the Noise Ordinance establish additional noise limitations for operation
of construction equipment [San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances Title 3, Division 6, Chapter
4, Section 36.401 through 36.435] Except for emergency work, in shall be unlawful for any person to
operate or cause to be operated, construction equipment:
a. Between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
b. That exceeds an average sound level of 75 decibels for more than eight hours, 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.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-8
November 2016
The County noise ordinance also includes standards for other sources of temporary and nuisance noise.
Section 36.410, Sound Level Limitations on Impulsive Noise, states that except for emergency work, no
person shall produce or cause to be produced an impulsive noise that exceeds the following standards
when measured at the boundary line of or on any occupied property for 25 percent of the minutes in the
measurement period:
■ 82 dBA at an occupied residential, village zoning, or civic use, or 85 dBA at an occupied
agricultural, commercial, or industrial use; or
■ 85 dBA at an occupied residential, village zoning, or civic use, or 90 dBA at an occupied
agricultural, commercial, or industrial use for a public road project.
City of San Diego Noise Ordinance
The City of San Diego has adopted exterior noise level standards in its municipal code (Chapter 5, Public
Safety, Morals and Welfare, of the San Diego Municipal Code) for various land uses (Table 4.10-4).
Table 4.10-4 City of San Diego Exterior Noise Standards
Land Use Limit One-Hour dBA(1) Time Period
Single Family Residential
50 dBA
45 dBA
40 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Multi-Family Residential (Up to a maximum density of 1/2000)
55 dBA
50 dBA
45 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
All other Residential
60 dBA
55 dBA
50 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Commercial
65 dBA
60 dBA
60 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Industrial or Agricultural 75 dBA Anytime
(1) If the measured ambient level exceeds the applicable limit, the allowable one-hour average sound level shall be the
ambient noise level.
Source: San Diego Municipal Code, No. 59.5.0404
The City of San Diego Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Ordinance No. 59.5.0404) limits the hours of
allowable construction activities and establishes performance standards for construction noise at any
residentially zoned property. Construction activity is required to remain below 75 decibels from 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m. at or beyond the property lines of any property zoned residential. Additionally, the ordinance
prohibits construction from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and on Sundays and holidays, with the exception of
Columbus Day and Washington’s Birthday, unless a permit has been granted by the city. These provisions
do not apply to construction equipment used in connection with emergency work, provided the City of
San Diego is notified within 48 hours after commencement of work.
City of Chula Vista
Table 4.10-5 includes the exterior noise limits for Chula Vista (Chapter 19.68, Performance Standards and
Noise Control, of the Chula Vista Municipal Code) for various land uses. Construction and demolition
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-9
November 2016
activities are exempt from the Exterior Noise Standards listed below in Table 4.10-5. These noises are
regulated in Section 17.24.040. This ordinance prohibits the use of any tools, power machinery, or
equipment or the conduct of construction and building work in residential zones between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.,
Saturday and Sunday, except when the work is necessary for emergency repairs.
Table 4.10-5 City of Chula Vista Exterior Noise Standards
Receiving Land Use Category Limit One-Hour dBA(1) Time Period (Weekdays) Time Period (Weekends)
Single Family Residential 55 dBA
45 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 8:00 a.m.
Multi-Family Residential 60 dBA
50 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 8:00 a.m.
Commercial 65 dBA
60 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 8:00 a.m.
Light Industry (I-R and I-L zone) 70 dBA
70 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 8:00 a.m.
Heavy Industry (I zone) 80 dBA
80 dBA
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. – 8:00 a.m.
(1) If the measured ambient level exceeds the applicable limit, the allowable one-hour average sound level shall be the
ambient noise level.
Source: Chula Vista 2016
4.10.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.10.3.1 Issue 1 – Substantial Permanent Increases in
Ambient Noise Levels
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include the following PDF to reduce potential impacts
associated with permanent increases in ambient noise.
Noi-PDF-1 CIP pump station and well development projects located adjacent to residential land uses
shall place pumps, emergency generators, and any other motorized equipment within a
masonry enclosure that minimizes interior noise. For any vents included in the enclosure, the
construction contractor shall use materials specified within the OWD Standard Specifications
for Louvers and Vents (Section 10200).
Prior to operation, the noise levels from stationary motorized equipment (including
emergency generators) shall be measured to ensure that the following standards are not
exceeded:
i. CIP Projects located within the San Diego County shall not exceed a one-hour exterior
noise limit of 50 dBA at the property line during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
and 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-10
November 2016
ii. CIP Projects located within the city of San Diego shall not exceed a one-hour exterior noise
limit of 50 dBA at the property line during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), 45 dBA
during evening hours (7:00 pm to 10:00 p.m.), and 40 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
iii. CIP Projects located within the city of Chula Vista shall not exceed a one-hour exterior
noise limit of 55 dBA at the property line during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
and 45 dBA during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant adverse impact if it would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in applicable plans or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies, or otherwise result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project. For the purposes of this analysis, the applicable exterior
noise standards for San Diego County, the city of San Diego, and Chula Vista shall be used, as defined in
Tables 4.10-3, 4.10-4, and 4.10-5, respectively.
Impact Analysis
The potential for implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update to result in significant permanent increases
in ambient noise from transportation noise sources and operational noise sources is discussed below.
Temporary noise impacts resulting from construction activities are discussed in Issue 2.
Transportation Noise Sources
Transportation noise sources for the CIP projects would be primarily associated with vehicular trips by
employees. However, as addressed in Chapter 4.12 (Transportation/Traffic) operation of CIP projects
proposed under the 2015 WFMP Update would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips.
The maintenance for most of the CIP projects may require approximately one visit per day by OWD
employees. CIP projects located within the Regulatory potable water operating system (see Figure 3-2)
may require as many as 5-10 trips per day. Due to the minimal number and the geographic distribution of
vehicular trips associated with the maintenance of the CIP projects, audible transportation noise increases
in comparison to existing conditions would be negligible. Therefore, implementation of the 2015 WFMP
Update would not result in permanent increases in ambient noise associated with transportation noise
sources.
Operational Noise Sources
Operational noise sources associated with the 2015 WFMP Update could potentially affect nearby
residences. The operational noise levels would vary depending on the type of CIP project, as described
below.
Storage Projects
The CIP water storage projects located near residential land uses are identified in Table 4.10-1. Nine CIP
water storage projects would be constructed within the OWD planning area. Once installed, these
reservoirs would be passive facilities, and would not require the use of pumps, motors, or other noise-
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-11
November 2016
generating machinery. Therefore, operation of these facilities would not result in permanent increases in
the ambient noise environment and no operational noise impact would occur.
Pump Station Projects
Pump stations are likely to generate noise that may be audible beyond the facility site due to the motors
that are used to pump the water. During normal operation, pump stations are powered by electric motors;
during emergencies, diesel engine generators are used. The 2015 WFMP Update proposes construction of
potable pump stations CIPs; some pump station CIPs entail upgrades or expansions to existing pump
stations, others propose new pump stations (see Table 3-2). The 2015 WFMP Update also proposes recycled
water CIP pump station projects (see Table 3-4). Emergency generators would only generate noise when the
equipment is tested, approximately once per month, or in the event of an emergency.
Operational noise generated from pump station motors may generate noise levels that exceed those
established within the local jurisdiction that may affect nearby NSLU (primarily residences). CIP pump
station projects located adjacent to residential land uses are identified in Table 4.10-2. However, it is
typical for pump stations to be placed within a masonry enclosure, which insulate pump stations and
attenuate operational noise. In addition, noise generated from the periodic testing of the emergency
power generators would temporarily increase ambient exterior noise levels. The OWD tests emergency
generators approximately once a month for approximately 30 minutes during normal working hours.
Although the OWD has never received complaints from nearby residents about noise produced from
normal operations or emergency tests at pump stations, the implementation of Noi-PDF-1 would ensure
that for pump stations that are located adjacent to residential land uses, any stationary noise-generating
mechanical equipment (including emergency generators) would be enclosed within a masonry structure,
and that the exterior noise levels from the equipment does not exceed the exterior noise level limits for
residential land uses for the applicable jurisdictions within which the projects are located.
Pipeline Projects
CIP pipeline projects would be constructed under pre-existing roadways or concurrently with proposed
roadways. Similar to storage projects, pipelines are passive facilities. Once installed, pipelines would not
require the use of pumps, motors, or other noise-generating machinery. Therefore, operation of these
facilities would not result in permanent increases in the ambient noise environment that may affect
surrounding NSLU and no operational noise impact would occur.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Noi-PDF-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with permanent increases in
ambient noise; therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
4.10.3.2 Issue 2 – Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following SCPs
to reduce potential impacts associated with temporary increases in ambient noise.
Noi-SCP-1 Construction activities shall comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations
specifying sound control, including the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and the City of
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-12
November 2016
Chula Vista. Measures to reduce construction/demolition noise to the maximum extent
feasible shall be included in contractor specifications and shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
i. Construction activity shall be restricted to the hours specified within each respective
Municipal Code, depending on the location of the specific CIP project, as follows:
- Construction activity for CIP projects located within San Diego County and the city of
San Diego shall occur between hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday; construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
- Construction activity for CIP projects located within Chula Vista shall occur between
hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday.
ii. Construction noise for projects located within San Diego County and the city of San Diego
shall not exceed an average sound level of 75 dBA for an eight-hour period at the project’s
property boundary.
iii. All construction equipment shall be properly outfitted and maintained with
manufacturer-recommended noise-reduction devices.
Noi-SCP-2 For any construction activities which include blasting, the construction contractor shall
implement the OWD Standard Specifications for Explosives and Blasting (Section 02200).
Subject to these standard specifications, a qualified blasting consultant and geotechnical
consultant shall prepare all required blasting plans and monitor all blasting activities. Prior to
blasting, the contractor shall secure all permits required by law for blasting operations and
provide notification at least five work days in advance of blasting activities within 300 feet of
a residence or commercial building. Monitoring of all blasting activities shall be in
conformance with the Standards of the State of California, Department of Mines and in no
case shall blasting intensities exceed the safety standards of PPV established by the U.S.
Department of Mines.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant adverse impact if it would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies, or otherwise result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Impact Analysis
Construction of CIP projects proposed under the 2015 WFMP Update would result in temporary increases
in ambient noise levels. Construction activities associated with CIP projects would involve the use of heavy
equipment during land clearing, demolition of structures, and construction phases of access roads.
Equipment that would be associated with construction of the proposed CIP projects includes dozers,
rollers, dewatering pumps, backhoes, loaders, delivery and haul trucks. The magnitude of the impact
would depend on the type of construction activity, noise level generated by various pieces of construction
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-13
November 2016
equipment, duration of the construction phase, distance between the noise source and receiver, and any
intervening topography. Sound levels of typical construction equipment range from 60 dBA to 90 dBA at
50 feet from the source (EPA 1971). Temporary construction noise impacts to NSLU would be reduced
through implementation of Noi-SCP-1, which would ensure compliance with applicable local noise
ordinances and regulations, including the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and City of Chula Vista.
Additional measures such as outfitting construction equipment with manufacturer-recommended noise-
reduction features and locating generators and pumps at least 100 feet from the nearest NSLU would also
minimize construction equipment noise.
Blasting and rock removal may be required for construction of certain CIP projects. The blasting procedure
would include drilling a hole, filling the hole with explosive material, capping the hole, and detonating the
material. Blasting is a short-term event, typically lasting no more than several seconds. Noise levels from
rock drilling and blasting could exceed 90 dBA – 100 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Temporary noise impacts
associated with blasting activities would be reduced through implementation of Noi-SCP-2, which would
ensure compliance with the OWD Standard Specifications for Explosives and Blasting (Section 02200).
Subject to these standard specifications, a qualified blasting consultant and geotechnical consultant would
prepare all required blasting plans and monitor all blasting activities. Prior to blasting, the contractor
would secure all permits required by law for blasting operations and provide notification at least five work
days in advance of blasting activities within 300 feet of a residence or commercial building. Monitoring of
all blasting activities would be in conformance with the Standards of the State of California, Department
of Mines and in no case would blasting intensities exceed the safety standards of PPV established by the
U.S. Department of Mines.
At this time, many of the CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update are still in the design phase, and as
such, information regarding the specific number and type of construction equipment required and the
duration of construction activities is still unknown. Therefore, it is unknown whether or not construction
emissions for the CIP projects (either individually or collectively) would exceed the noise levels limits
established by applicable noise ordinances. However, implementation of Noi-SCP-1 and Noi-SCP-2 would
ensure that noise from construction activity would remain within the limits established by applicable
jurisdictions, and temporary noise impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Noi-SCP-1 and Noi-SCP-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with temporary
increases in ambient noise; therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
4.10.3.3 Issue 3 – Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, Noi-SCP-1 and
Noi-SCP-2 (refer to Section 4.10.3.2, Issue 2) to reduce potential impacts associated with excessive
groundborne vibration and noise.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant adverse impact if it would result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-14
November 2016
groundborne vibration equal to or in excess of 0.2 in/sec PPV. Construction activities within 200 feet and
pile driving within 600 feet would be potentially disruptive to vibration-sensitive operations (Caltrans
2002).
Impact Analysis
Vibration sources associated with implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would be generated
primarily from project construction. Once installed, the CIP project facilities include either passive uses
(pipelines, reservoirs) or pump stations that would not generate substantial levels of vibration.
Construction-related vibration would have the potential to impact nearby structures and vibration-
sensitive equipment and operations. The level of vibration generated from other construction activities
would depend on the type of soils and the energy-generating capability of the construction equipment.
According to Caltrans, the highest measured vibration level during highway construction was 2.88 in/sec
PPV at 10 feet from a pavement breaker. Other typical construction activities and equipment, such as
dozers, earthmovers, and trucks have not exceeded 0.10 in/sec PPV at 10 feet. Vibration sensitive
instruments and operations may require special consideration during construction. Vibration criteria for
sensitive equipment and operations are not defined and are often case specific. In general, the criteria
must be determined based on manufacturer specifications and recommendations by the equipment user.
As a guide, major construction activity within 200 feet and pile driving within 600 feet may be potentially
disruptive to sensitive operations (Caltrans 2002). Although no vibration-sensitive uses have been
identified within 200 feet of the proposed CIP projects, construction of certain CIP projects may include
blasting, which would have the potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration that may affect
nearby vibration-sensitive uses. Compliance with the OWD Standard Specifications for Explosives and
Blasting (Section 02200), as specified in Noi-SCP-2 would reduce impacts associated with groundborne
vibration due to blasting activities to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Noi-SCP-1 and Noi-SCP-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with excessive
groundborne vibration and noise; no mitigation is required.
4.10.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels resulting from aircraft?
The planning area is located within two miles of one public airport and one private airstrip. The planning
area is subject to periodic commercial/general aircraft and helicopter overflights from regional airports,
however, the CIP projects included within the 2015 WFMP Update include pump stations, reservoirs,
pipelines, and water supply projects, which do not contain any residential housing. Further, these projects
would not affect the aircraft flight patterns of regional airports. Therefore, no impact would occur, and
no further analysis is required.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-15
November 2016
4.10.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista). 2005. Chula Vista General Plan. Chapter 5: Land Use and Transportation
Element. December 13.
City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista). 2016. Municipal Code Chapter 19.68, Performance Standards and Noise
Control. Amended March 22.
City of San Diego. 2007. Municipal Code Chapter 5, Public Safety, Morals and Welfare, Amended
December 2007.
City of San Diego. 2008. City of San Diego General Plan. Noise Element. March.
County of San Diego (County). 2011. San Diego County General Plan: Noise Element.
County of San Diego (County). Municipal Code Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4. Amended January 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared under contract by Bolt, et al., Bolt, Beranek
& Newman, Boston, Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.10 Noise
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.10-16
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-1
November 2016
4.11 Public Safety
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect to public safety; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect, and/or
cumulative) related to this issue resulting from development of CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update; and
the project design features, standard construction practices, and mitigation/performance measures to
reduce or avoid the identified impacts.
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
4.11.1.1 Use and Disposal of Hazardous Materials at CIP
Sites
For purposes of this PEIR, a “hazardous material” is defined by the California Health and Safety Code
Sections 25501(n) and (o), as:
…any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical
characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety
or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous
materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and
any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for
believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the
environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
All construction CIP sites would require the use of vehicle related fuels, lubricants, oils, paints, and
solvents. Water storage CIPs may utilize chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite, and aqueous ammonia for
water disinfecting purposes.
4.11.1.2 Transportation of Hazardous Materials
OWD contracts with licensed hazardous waste transporters to deliver hazardous wastes generated at
OWD facilities to licensed hazardous waste facilities for treatment or disposal. The USDOT, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, sets strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as
outlined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (refer to Section 4.11.2.1 below for more
information). In California, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has the primary authority of enforcing
federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies.
Specifically, Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code requires that when hazardous materials are
transported on state or interstate highways, the highway(s) that offer the shortest overall transit time
possible shall be used. The transportation of hazardous materials along any city or state highway within
or near the planning area is subject to applicable regulations established by the CHP and the County DEH
(PBS&J 2010).
Wildland Fire Hazards
Portions of the planning area are located in regions with a known risk or history of wildland fire. Wildland
fire response within the unincorporated county portions of the planning area is provided by the California
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-2
November 2016
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) or one of the responsible community fire districts,
including Crest Forest Fire District, San Diego Rural Fire Protection District, Bonita-Sunnyside Fire
Protection District, or San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District. Wildland fire response within the
portions of the planning area encompassed by the City of San Diego or the City of Chula Vista is provided
by the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department and the Chula Vista Fire Department, respectively (PBS&J 2010).
Emergency Response and Evacuation plans
The Unified Disaster Council (UDC) is the governing body of the Unified San Diego County Emergency
Services Organization. The Council is comprised of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, who serves
as Chair of the Council, and representatives from the 18 incorporated cities. The County of San Diego
Office of Emergency Services (OES) serves as staff to the UDC. In this capacity, OES is a liaison between
the incorporated cities, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), as well as non-governmental agencies such as the American Red Cross
(County 2014).
The San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP); described further below in Section 4.11.2.3, was
approved by the County Board of Supervisors in September 2014. The EOP is used by all key partner
agencies within the county to respond to major emergencies and disasters. The cities are encouraged to
adopt the Emergency Operations Plan as their own with modifications as appropriate (County 2014).
OWD Hazardous Materials Business Plan
In accordance with the Water Agencies Standards (WAS), prior to grading, the construction contractor is
required to implement a HMBP at each CIP construction site. In addition, for each CIP pump station project
and CIP well development project that would involve the transport, storage, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials during project operation, OWD will create and implement a site-specific HMBP
(PBS&J 2010).
4.11.2 Regulatory Framework
Applicable federal and state laws and regulations governing the generation, handling, transportation,
storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are described in the following sections. Federal agencies
that regulate hazardous materials include the EPA and the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). At the state level, agencies such as the California EPA, California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC), California OSHA govern the use of hazardous materials.
4.11.2.1 Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
Federal hazardous waste laws are generally promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. These laws provide for
the “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. Any business, institution, or other entity that
generates hazardous waste is required to identify and track its hazardous waste from the point of
generation until it is recycled, reused, or disposed of. The EPA has the primary responsibility for
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-3
November 2016
implementing RCRA; however, individual states are encouraged to seek authorization to implement some
or all of RCRA provisions.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
The USDOT regulates hazardous materials transportation under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and
responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the CHP and Caltrans. These agencies
also govern permitting for hazardous materials transportation.
Title 40 CFR Part 112, Oil Pollution Prevention
A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) is required by Title 40, CFR Part 112. In
California, owners and operators of above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) must comply with federal
regulations pertaining to oil spill prevention and above-ground petroleum storage. The SPCC Plan provides
an analysis of the potential for hazardous materials releases from ASTs and the measures that could be
put into place to reduce the potential for such releases. Facilities subject to these regulations must
complete an SPCC Plan if they contain ASTs with a capacity of 660 gallons or more, or if the total facility
capacity exceeds 1,320 gallons.
4.11.2.2 State
Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act
Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code requires facilities that use, produce, store, or
generate hazardous substances to prepare and implement a HMBP that discloses the type, quantity, and
storage location of materials. The law also requires a site-specific emergency response plan, employee
training, and designation of emergency contact personnel.
Title 23 CCR, Underground Storage Tank Act
The Underground Storage Tank (UST) monitoring and response program is required under Chapter 6.7 of
the California Health and Safety Code and Title 23 of the CCR. The program was developed to ensure that
the facilities meet regulatory requirements for monitoring, maintenance, and emergency response in
operating USTs. The County DEH is the local administering agency for this program.
Above-ground Petroleum Storage Act
The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act requires registration and spill prevention programs for ASTs that
store petroleum. In some cases, ASTs for petroleum may be subject to groundwater monitoring programs
that are implemented by the RWQCB and the SWRCB.
SB 1889, Accidental Release Prevention Law/California Accidental
Release Prevention Program
SB 1889 required California to implement a federally mandated program governing the accidental
airborne release of chemicals promulgated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Effective January 1,
1997, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (ARP) replaced the previous California Risk
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-4
November 2016
Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) and incorporated the mandatory federal requirements.
California ARP addresses facilities containing specified hazardous materials (“regulated substances”) that,
if involved in an accidental release, could result in adverse off-site consequences. California ARP defines
regulated substances as chemicals that pose a threat to public health and safety or the environment
because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive.
Title 22, California Hazardous Waste Control Law
California received authority to implement the RCRA program in August 1992. The CDTSC is responsible
for implementing the RCRA program as well as California’s own hazardous waste laws, which are
collectively known as the California Hazardous Waste Control Law. The CDTSC regulates the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste under the RCRA and the California
Hazardous Waste Control Law. Both laws impose “cradle to grave” regulatory systems for handling
hazardous waste in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Under the Certified
Unified Program Agency (CUPA), CDTSC has in turn delegated enforcement authority to the County of San
Diego, which has direct oversight of hazardous waste generation, transportation, storage, and disposal
within the planning area.
Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an Emergency Response Plan (ERP) to coordinate emergency services provided
by federal, state, and local government, and private agencies. The ERP is administered by the California
OES and includes response to hazardous materials incidents. The California OES coordinates the response
of other agencies, including the California EPA, CHP, CDFG, RWQCB, San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(APCD), and the various city fire departments and fire protection districts in the county.
4.11.2.3 Local
San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan
The Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization and County of San Diego Operational Area
EOP (County 2014) identifies the following hazards within the San Diego region along with the emergency
response/evacuation plans to avoid such hazards: earthquake, flooding, drought, dam failure, nuclear-
related accidents, water, gas, energy and shortage, terrorism, tsunami, wildland and urban fire,
transportation accidents, and hazardous materials incidents, and landslides. The EOP was developed in
accordance with the state mandated Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the
federal mandated National Incident Management System (NIMS).
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-5
November 2016
4.11.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
4.11.3.1 Issue 1 – Transport, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous
Materials and Accidental Releases
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following SCP
and PDF to reduce potential impacts associated with potential exposure to hazardous materials.
Haz-SCP-1 Prior to construction of CIP projects, the construction contractor will prepare and submit
a HMBP to OWD. The procedures in the HMBP will comply with USDOT (Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety) as it pertains to the transportation, storage, use, and disposal
of hazardous materials and CHP regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials
along state highways.
Haz-PDF-1 OWD will continue to prepare and implement a post-construction HMBP for long-term
operations at CIP reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater wells involving the
transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The procedures in the
HMBP will comply with USDOT (Office of Hazardous Materials Safety) and CHP regulations
for the transportation of hazardous materials along state highways.
Haz-PDF-2 OWD will continue to prepare and implement SPCC plans for long-term operations at CIP
pump stations that store fuel on site and meet the criteria of requiring an SPCC plan. The
procedures in the SPCC will comply with US EPA’s regulations for stored fuel and oils to
prevent any discharge of oil into or upon navigable waters of the United States or ad-
joining shorelines.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it would create a hazard to the public or the environment through the transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials; through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment; or through hazardous emissions
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Impact Analysis
Construction of CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update would continue to involve a limited amount of
hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, oils, paints, and solvents. However, the construction contractor
is required to implement a HMBP to allow for the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials during CIP construction activities. In addition, the County DEH Health Hazardous Incident
Response Team (HIRT) would respond to hazardous materials incidents (including identification,
evaluation and mitigation of threats to local populations and the environment) within the County’s
jurisdiction and is also contracted to respond to hazardous materials incidents within the City of Chula
Vista’s jurisdiction. The Hazardous Materials (HazMat) team of the City of San Diego Fire-Rescue
Department would respond to toxic chemical spills within the city’s jurisdiction. This team utilizes specific
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-6
November 2016
training and equipment to handle such challenges that arise with toxic chemical spills and resulting
emergency situations. Therefore, implementation of Haz-SCP-1 would reduce hazards to the public or the
environment through the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during CIP
construction activities, and associated accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment
and near schools, to a less than significant level.
Long-term operations at some CIP reservoirs, pump stations, and groundwater wells under the 2015
WFMP Update may involve a limited amount of hazardous materials, such as chlorine gas, sodium
hypochlorite, and aqueous ammonia for water disinfecting purposes. However, the OWD is required to
implement a post-construction HMBP to allow for the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials for CIP reservoir, pump station, and groundwater well operations. Therefore,
implementation of Haz-PDF-1 and Haz PDF-2 would reduce hazards to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during CIP operations, and
associated accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment and near schools, to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Haz-SCP-1, Haz-PDF-1, and Haz-PDF-2 would reduce hazards to the public and the
environment through the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during CIP
construction and operations, including an accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment,
to a less than significant level; therefore, no mitigation is required.
4.11.3.2 Issue 2 – Listed Hazardous Materials Sites
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
There are no PDFs or SCPs identified to reduce potential impacts associated with listed hazardous
materials sites.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it would result in activities 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.
Impact Analysis
The potential exists for CIP sites to have been contaminated by hazardous substances as a result of former
uses of the sites, leaks from unidentified USTs, or unidentified buried debris that could contain hazardous
substances or hazardous by-products. The potential risk associated with past contamination was not
quantified for the various CIP sites as part of this PEIR. Therefore, CIP construction activities could be
located on or near listed hazardous materials sites resulting in a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-7
November 2016
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of the following measure would reduce potential impacts associated with listed
hazardous materials sites to a less than significant level. This is considered both a mitigation and
performance measure since the same measure is required for near-term and long-term projects.
Haz-2A As part of geotechnical investigations conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities for
CIPs (refer to the SCPs listed in Section 4.5, Geology, Soils and Paleontology, of this PEIR),
a database search of hazardous materials sites shall be performed within a one-mile
radius surrounding the CIP site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. In the
event such sites are identified within the search parameters, OWD shall retain a
registered environmental assessor to prepare a Remediation Plan for any contaminated
soils or groundwater encountered within the construction area. The Remediation Plan
shall be incorporated into the construction documents. If contamination is encountered
during ground-disturbing activities, the on-site construction supervisor shall redirect work
away from the location of the contamination and shall notify OWD, County DEH and
RWQCB. The contamination remediation and removal activities shall be conducted in
accordance with the Remediation Plan and pertinent regulatory guidelines, under the
oversight of the appropriate regulatory agency.
4.11.3.3 Issue 3 – Emergency Response and Evacuation
Plans
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would include, but would not be limited to, the following SCP
to reduce potential impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation plans.
Haz-SCP-2 In the event that CIP construction activities would require a lane or roadway closure, or
could otherwise substantially interfere with traffic circulation, the contractor will obtain
a Traffic Control Permit from the local land use agency and/or state agencies such as
Caltrans, prior to construction as necessary, and implement a traffic control plan to
ensure that adequate emergency access and egress is maintained and that traffic will
move efficiently and safely in and around the construction site. The traffic control plan
may include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
i. Install traffic control signs, cones, flags, flares, lights, and temporary traffic signals in
compliance with the requirements of local jurisdictions, and relocate them as the
work progresses to maintain effective traffic control.
ii. Provide trained and equipped flag persons to regulate traffic flow when construction
activities encroach onto traffic lanes.
iii. Control parking for construction equipment and worker vehicles to prevent
interference with public and private parking spaces, access by emergency vehicles,
and owner’s operations.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-8
November 2016
iv. Traffic control equipment, devices, and post settings will be removed when no longer
required. Any damage caused by equipment installation will be repaired.
v. For CIP construction activities near schools, the contractor will coordinate with
schools prior to commencement of construction activity to minimize potential
disruption of traffic flows during school day peak traffic periods.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update may have a
significant impact if it would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Impact Analysis
Construction of CIPs could involve lane or roadway closures that may temporarily interfere with
emergency response vehicles, and that may temporarily impair implementation of adopted emergency
response/emergency evacuation plans contained within the EOP, which applies to the entire planning
area. However, construction contractors are required to obtain a Traffic Control Permit from the local
land use agency, and implement a traffic control plan to ensure that adequate emergency access and
egress is maintained around the construction sites. Therefore, implementation of Haz-SCP-2 would reduce
public safety hazards associated with temporary, construction-related lane and road closures or detours
and their potential impairment or interference with adopted emergency response and evacuation plans
to a less than significant level.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
Implementation of Haz-SCP-2 would reduce public safety hazards associated with temporary,
construction-related lane and road closures or detours and their potential impairment or interference
with adopted emergency response and evacuation plans to a less than significant level; therefore, no
mitigation is required.
4.11.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip?
Three CIPs, P2554 (624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue), P2405 (624/340 PRS, Heritage Road
and Hard Rock Road), and P2482 (Otay Mesa Lot 7 Groundwater Well System), under the 2015 WFMP
Update would be located within two miles of a public airport or in the vicinity of a private airstrip (Figure
4.10-1). The nearest public airport to a CIP site is Brown Field, which is operated by the City of San Diego.
Since there would be no human occupation associated with these CIPs, proximity to Brown Field would
not result in a public safety hazard. Therefore, there would be no impact, and no further analysis is
required.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-9
November 2016
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update expose CIP structures to a significant risk of loss
involving wildland fires?
Construction and design of the CIP reservoirs, pump stations and groundwater wells under the 2015
WFMP Update would comply with the Uniform Fire Code (Title 24 CFR, Part 9), which requires installation
of sprinkler systems, fire-resistant building materials, standard driveway widths, and other features to
ensure that buildings are constructed with all reasonable fire safety features. Therefore, implementation
of required fire safety features would reduce potential impacts to CIP structures under the 2015 WFMP
Update from wildland fires to a less than significant level, and no further analysis is required.
4.11.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
County of San Diego, Office of Emergency Services (County). 2014. Unified San Diego County Emergency
Services Organization and County of San Diego Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan.
September 2014.
PBS&J. 2010. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Otay Water District 2009 Water
Resources Master Plan Update. January.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.11 Public Safety
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.11-10
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.12 Transportation/Traffic
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.12-1
November 2016
4.12 Transportation/Traffic
This section of the PEIR for the 2015 WFMP Update describes existing conditions within the planning area
with respect transportation and traffic; the potential physical environmental effects (direct, indirect,
and/or cumulative) related to this issue resulting from development of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP
Update; and the project design features, standard construction practices, and mitigation/performance
measures to reduce or avoid the identified impacts.
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Although San Diego County is growing as a region, the amount of traffic to affect the planning area will be
minimal during the repair and construction of the proposed CIP projects identified in the 2015 WFMP
Update. The OWD service area consists of 80,320 acres (125.5 square miles) and provides water service
to approximately 200,000 residents. The OWD boundaries encompass a large portion of eastern Chula
Vista, a portion of the city of San Diego on Otay Mesa, and various unincorporated areas, including Rancho
San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, Otay Mesa, and areas adjacent to El Cajon and La Mesa. The OWD
water service area is divided into two distinct districts: the North District, serving San Diego County
communities above Sweetwater Reservoir; and, the South District, serving the City of Chula Vista and Otay
Mesa. Within these two area systems are six primary operating systems for potable water, including the
Regulatory, La Presa, and Hillsdale systems in the North District and the Central, Otay Mesa, and Village
13 systems in the South District. There are several major transportation routes though which access to
OWD is possible, including I-8, SR- 54, and SR-94 in the north; I-805 to the west; and SR-125 in the north
and south.
SR-125 is more often used in the northern portion of the planning area and less traveled within the region
of the proposed CIP projects. Perhaps one reason for this is the remoteness of the region as SR-125
continues on south and becomes a toll road. In the southern portion of the planning area, closer to the
international border, the proposed CIP projects are located in the remote and rural areas of OWD’s
jurisdiction. Traffic will not be affected significantly by the proposed CIP projects in these areas. Within
the vicinity of the serviced area of eastern Chula Vista and southern Otay are the Brown Field Municipal
Airport, Otay County Open Space Preserve, and Correction Facilities and Detention Facilities. These areas
are not typically exposed to large amounts of traffic daily. Within the city of San Diego, to the east, lies
San Miguel Mountain, Mother Miguel Mountain, and a portion of the Jamul Mountains, where the San
Diego National Wildlife Refuge Center is located. The areas to the east of the city of San Diego are remote
and typically have a very low amount of vehicular traffic. The majority of the La Presa System services an
urban area, while the remaining service area is vegetated by coastal scrub and grasslands. The Hillside
System is similar to La Presa System as they both service areas that are half urban and the remaining areas
consist of primarily coastal scrub and riparian forest land. Central Area System services eastern Chula
Vista, where about 40 percent of the area is urban and the remaining portions contain different
vegetation. The Otay Mesa System services about 60 percent agricultural land, with the remaining
portions consisting of different vegetated types. Village 13 is a mile east of Chula Vista and would be a
future rural residential development. The County unincorporated Villages east of Chula Vista would be
future mixed use developments.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.12 Transportation/Traffic
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.12-2
November 2016
Existing Roadway Segments Serving the Planning Area
Local arterial roads in the planning area include Campo Road which connects to SR-94, Jamacha Road,
Jamacha Boulevard, and Willow Glen Drive which connect to SR-54, and Willow Glen Drive, East
H Street/Proctor Valley Road, Telegraph Canyon Road/Otay Lakes Road, and Olympic Parkway that
connect I-805 and SR-125. A network of residential streets and paved and unpaved rural roads also serves
the planning area.
4.12.2 Regulatory Framework
4.12.2.1 Federal
Highway Capacity Manual
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), prepared by the federal Transportation Research Board (TRB), is
the result of a collaborative multi-agency effort between the TRB, Federal Highway Administration, and
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Transportation Research Board
2010). The HCM contains concepts, guidelines, and procedures for computing the capacity and quality of
service of various transportation facilities, including freeways, signalized and unsignalized intersections,
and rural highways, and the effects of transit, pedestrians, and bicycles on the performance of these
systems.
4.12.2.2 State
California Department of Transportation Standards
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for planning, designing, building,
operating, and maintaining California’s state road system. Caltrans sets standards, policies, and strategic
plans that aim to do the following: (1) provide the safest transportation system in the nation for users and
workers, (2) maximize transportation system performance and accessibility, (3) efficiently deliver quality
transportation projects and services, (4) preserve and enhance California’s resources and assets, and (5)
promote quality service. Caltrans has the discretionary authority to issue special permits for the use of
state highways for other than normal transportation purposes.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
The California 2016 2014 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), approved by the California
Transportation Commission in January 2016U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in August 2013, is a
multiyear, intermodal program of transportation projects that is consistent with the statewide
transportation planning processes, metropolitan plans, and Title 23 of the CFR. The STIP is prepared by
Caltrans in cooperation with the MPOs and the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. In San Diego
County, the MPO and Regional Transportation Planning Agency is the SANDAG. The STIP contains all
capital and non-capital transportation projects or identified phases of transportation projects for funding
under the federal Transit Act and CFR Title 23, including federally funded projects.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.12 Transportation/Traffic
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.12-3
November 2016
4.12.2.3 Regional/Local
Regional Plan 2050 Regional Transportation Plan
SANDAG adopted the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) on October 9, 2015. The
Regional Plan integrates the Regional Transportation Plan, its Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the
Regional Comprehensive Plan into one document. The Regional Plan 2050 RTP and SCS on October 28,
2011. The 2050 RTP maps out a system designed to maximize transit enhancements, integrate biking and
walking elements, and promote programs to reduce demand and increase efficiency (SANDAG
20152011a). The Regional Plan RTP also identifies the plan for investing in local, state and federal
transportation facilities in the region over the next 3540 years. The Regional Plan SCS also addresses how
the transportation system will be developed in such a way that the region is able to reduce per-capita
GHG emissions to state-mandated levels.
20162014 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
The Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) is a multi-year program of proposed major highway,
arterial, transit, and bikeway projects. The 20162014 RTIP is a multi-billion dollar, multi-year program of
proposed projects for major transportation projects in the San Diego Region. The RTIP covers five fiscal
years and incrementally implements the Regional Plan (SANDAG 2016). prioritized program designed to
implement the region’s overall strategy for providing mobility and improving the efficiency and safety of
efforts to attain federal and state air quality standards for the region (SANDAG 2014).
San Diego County General Plan Mobility Element
The San Diego County General Plan Mobility Element provides a framework for a balanced, multi-modal
transportation system within the unincorporated areas of the County of San Diego (County 2011a, and
amended most recently on November 18, 2015). The Mobility Element includes a description of the
County’s transportation network and the goals and policies that address safety, efficiency, maintenance,
and management of the transportation network.
San Diego County Public Road Standards
The County of San Diego Public Road Standards were updated consistent with the County’s Mobility
Element in March 2012. The standards serve as guidelines for design and construction of public road
improvements projects within unincorporated San Diego County. The standards apply to both county and
developer initiated public road improvement projects.
San Diego County Guidelines for Determining Significance and
Report Format and Content Requirements for Transportation and
Traffic
The County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content
Requirements for Transportation and Traffic, modified August 24, 2011, provide guidance for evaluating
adverse environmental effects that a project may have in relation to traffic and transportation (County
2011b). The guidelines for determining significance are organized into six categories: road segments,
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.12 Transportation/Traffic
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.12-4
November 2016
signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, ramps, hazards due to an existing transportation
design feature, and hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists.
Congestion Management Plan
Projects that generate over 2,400 ADT or 200 peak hour trips, must comply with the traffic study
requirements of SANDAG’s CMP. The proposed CIP projects would not exceed these thresholds;
therefore, no Congestion Management Plan analysis is required.
4.12.3 Impacts and Mitigation
4.12.3.1 Issues 1 & 2 – Circulation System Performance and
Level of Service Standards
Project Design Features/Standard Construction Practices
There are no PDFs or SCPs identified to reduce potential impacts associated with performance of the
circulation system and level of service standards.
Standards of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update and CIP projects
may have less than significant impacts on the performance of the circulation system.
Impact Analysis
The development of the proposed CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would generate a minor
amount of daily construction-related trips from trucks hauling soil and/or demolition materials from the
proposed project construction sites; trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the construction
sites; and construction workers driving to/from the construction sites. These localized increases in
construction traffic would be temporary. This construction traffic would be a temporary increase to
infrequently used locations which should not impact the traffic of localized commuters. Construction
would take place throughout the planning area so that even if multiple CIP construction projects are
underway simultaneously, construction would not be concentrated in one area.
Traffic associated with operation of the CIP projects would be primarily from employee commutes and
maintenance activities. However, operation of CIP projects proposed under the 2015 WFMP Update
would not generate a significant volume of new vehicle trips. The maintenance for most of the CIP projects
may require approximately one visit per day by OWD employees. CIP projects located within the
regulatory potable water operating system (see Figure 3-2) may require as many as 5-10 trips per day.
Such incremental increases in vehicle trips would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of intersections, street segments and freeways within the planning area.
Mitigation/Performance Measures
As discussed above, construction-related traffic and employee commutes would increase total trips by an
incremental amount, but well below any noticeable level; therefore, impacts related to traffic and LOS
standards would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.12 Transportation/Traffic
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.12-5
November 2016
4.12.4 CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant
or Not Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).
The implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update involves the construction of new access roads for pump
station CIPs and potential open trenching in existing roads for pipeline CIPs, however, traffic control
measures, as described in Haz-SCP-2, would be implemented during construction and the roads would be
designed as to not increase hazards to the public. Uses of new access roads and existing roads would
continue to be compatible with OWD operations and maintenance of CIP facilities and function as
designed within the larger context of the local transportation network. Therefore, there would be no
impact, and no further analysis is required.
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
As mentioned previously, the OWD water transmission facilities are not subject to local agency zoning
requirements pursuant to Section 53901 of the California Government Code. Due to this exemption,
implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation, and no further analysis is required.
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update exceed either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
The incremental increases in short-term, construction-related vehicle trips and long-term operational
trips associated with the CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would not be substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the circulation system, and therefore would not exceed a level
of service standard for intersections, street segments and freeways within the planning area. Since there
would be no direct or cumulative traffic impacts associated with implementation of the 2015 WFMP
Update, no further analysis is required.
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update result in inadequate emergency access?
Compliance with applicable building codes would ensure that any driveways or other emergency access
points would be adequately provided at each CIP, where necessary; therefore, development of CIPs under
the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in inadequate emergency access, and no further analysis is
required.
Chapter 4 Environmental Impact Analysis 4.12 Transportation/Traffic
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 4.12-6
November 2016
4.12.5 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
County of San Diego (County). 2011a. General Plan. Chapter 4, Mobility Element.
County of San Diego (County). 2011b. San Diego County Guidelines for Determining Significance and
Report Format and Content Requirements for Transportation and Traffic. Land Use and
Environmental Group. August 24, 2011.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October.
Accessed at: http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/The%20Plan%20-%20combined.pdf
2011. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. October 28, 2011. Accessed at:
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2016 2014. Regional Transportation Improvement
Program. September. Accessed at:
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_2071_21174.pdf
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-1
November 2016
Chapter 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION
CEQA requires that EIRs discuss cumulative impacts, in addition to project impacts. According to Section
15355 of the CEQA Guidelines:
“Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together,
are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
a. The individual effects may be changed resulting from a single project or a number of
separate projects.
b. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely
related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
projects taking place over a period of time.
Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a project
when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. According to Section 15065(a)(3) of
the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. In accordance with Section 15130(b) of the
CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and the
likelihood of their occurrence; however, this discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of
environmental impacts attributable to the project alone. Further, the discussion of cumulative impacts is
guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. The CEQA guidelines allow for a project’s
contribution to be rendered less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of mitigation
measure(s) designed to alleviate the cumulative impacts.
The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis varies depending upon the specific environmental
topic being analyzed. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(3), Table 5-1 summarizes the
geographic area within which past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may contribute
to a specific cumulative impact, when considered in conjunction with the impacts associated with
implementation of the WFMP.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b) indicates the following approaches for identifying cumulative projects:
■ A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts,
including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-2
November 2016
■ A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or
in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or
evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
In determining the present and probable future projects to include in the cumulative impact analysis, the
following guidance is provided by the Communities for a Better Environment vs. Resources Agency case.
Probable projects include those which: 1) have an application on file at the time the NOP is released;
2) are included in an adopted capital improvement program, general plan, regional transportation plan,
or similar plan; 3) are included in a summary of projections of projects (or development areas designated)
in a general plan or similar plan; 4) are anticipated as later phases of approved projects; or 5) are included
in money budgeted by public agencies.
Table 5-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analyses
Environmental Topic Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analyses
Air Quality
Sensitive receptors adjacent to CIP construction sites for toxic air contaminants; the
San Diego Air Basin for criteria air pollutants.
Biological Resources Natural habitats within and adjacent to CIP construction sites.
Cultural Resources The planning area and adjacent areas of influence.
Energy The planning area and adjacent areas of influence.
Geology, Soils, Paleontological
Resources
For seismic hazards and other geologic/soils conditions (fault rupture, groundshaking,
ground failure, liquefaction/collapse, landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
expansive soils), no cumulative study area because impacts are specific to CIP project
sites. For soil erosion, the cumulative impact study area includes the Sweetwater
River and Otay River watersheds directly downstream from CIP construction sites.
For paleontological resources, the cumulative impact study area includes the
paleontologically sensitive geologic formations within the planning area.
Global Climate Change Global atmosphere.
Hydrology/Water Quality For groundwater quality, supplies and recharge, the cumulative impact study area
includes the San Diego Formation, Sweetwater, and Otay Valley groundwater basins.
For surface water quality, the cumulative impact study area includes the Tijuana River,
Otay River and Sweetwater River watersheds directly downstream from CIP
construction sites and above-ground CIP projects (e.g., enclosed reservoirs, pump
stations).
Landform Alteration/Visual Quality Public viewsheds from which above-ground CIP projects would be visible.
Land Use/Planning For conflicts with habitat conservation plans and natural communities conservation
plans, the cumulative impact study area includes all of the open space reserves within
and adjacent to the planning area, as identified by Multiple Species Conservation
Plans of local agencies, including the San Miguel Habitat Management Area operated
by OWD.
Noise Residential projects directly adjacent to CIP construction sites and pump stations, and
projects adjacent to roadways and freeways used by construction-related traffic along
which the projected increase in construction traffic would exceed noise standards.
Public Safety Projects adjacent to roadways and freeways used by vehicles transporting hazardous
materials to and from the CIP construction sites.
Transportation/Traffic Roadways and intersections in the vicinity of CIP construction sites at which the
projected increase in construction traffic would exceed 50 peak-hour trips.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-3
November 2016
The cumulative analysis for this PEIR uses a combination of the two approaches listed above. For each
environmental topic addressed in Chapter 4 of this PEIR, the regional or area-wide conditions and
cumulative projects contributing to a particular cumulative impact (as identified in the relevant general
plans of jurisdictions located within and adjacent to the WFMP planning area) is considered as part of the
baseline when evaluating the WFMP’s contribution to that cumulative impact. In accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15130(b)(5), a determination is made regarding the significance of the baseline
cumulative impact (prior to considering the cumulative contribution of the WFMP) resulting from the full
range of regional or area-wide conditions and cumulative projects that occur within the specific
geographic areas described in Table 5-1.
Past projects were considered as part of the baseline condition for the cumulative impact analysis. The
cumulative projects identified and considered in the cumulative impact analyses are identified using the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) growth projections, as discussed and listed in Table 5-2.
Regional Land Use Planning and Projected Growth
SANDAG maintains the most current economic, demographic, land use, and transportation data
projections for the county and incorporated cities. The most recent growth and demographic forecast
prepared by SANDAG is known as Series 13. The Series 13 forecast is based on regional demographic and
economic forecasts, and on the adopted land use plans of the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and
County of San Diego, and each other land use jurisdiction within the OWD’s service area. The planning
documents discussed below guide development and land use planning in the region to accommodate for
the expected growth identified in the SANDAG projections.
The OWD worked with SANDAG to obtain custom data reports for the service area as a whole, and for
each of the five system areas and 26 pressure zones within the overall service area. Forecast population
data by system area is summarized in Table 5-2. Forecast employment data by system area is summarized
in Table 5-3.
Table 5-2 Anticipated Increase in Population 2012-2050
OWD Service Area
Existing Population
(2012)(2)
Forecasted Population % Change
Year 2020 Year 2035 Year 2050 (2012-2035) (2012-2050)
La Presa 43,214 43,437 45,914 50,846 6% 18%
Hillsdale 13,765 14,027 14,845 15,358 8% 12%
Regulatory 6,530 7,040 7,799 8,996 19% 38%
Central 135,488 167,700 191,586 202,948 41% 50%
Otay Mesa 6,196 12,807 24,135 29,729 290% 380%
Total OWD 205,193 245,011 284,279 307,877 39% 50%
Source: SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast Projections. August 2013.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-4
November 2016
Table 5-3 Anticipated Increase in Employment 2012-2050
OWD Service Area Existing Employment (2012)(2)
Forecasted Employment % Change
Year 2020 Year 2035 Year 2050 (2012-2035) (2012-2050)
La Presa 5,738 8,364 9,192 10,230 60% 78%
Hillsdale 4,617 4,486 4,490 4,490 -3% -3%
Regulatory 2,222 2,653 3,025 3,515 36% 58%
Central 20,008 38,089 45,000 53,244 125% 166%
Otay Mesa 14,094 17,281 21,108 37,064 50% 163%
Total OWD 46,679 70,873 82,815 108,543 77% 133%
Source: SANDAG Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast Projections. August 2013.
The SANDAG forecast indicates the OWD service area will continue to grow throughout the forecast
horizon, with population projected to increase 50 percent by 2050, and employment more than doubling
over the same period. The following notes characterize key aspects of the SANDAG forecast relative to
water demand forecasts.
North District Trends: Compared to the remainder of the OWD service area, population in the three North
District service areas will increase by 18 percent and employment increasing by 45 percent. These modest
increases are consistent with the more built‐out level of development in these areas, as relative to
adopted land use.
Central Service Area Trends: The Central service area will see the largest share of the projected growth,
with population increasing by 50 percent and employment by 166 percent. These significant increases are
consistent with the adopted land uses of the City of Chula Vista (through the Otay Ranch General
Development Plan) and of the County of San Diego.
Otay Mesa Service Area Trends: The Otay Mesa service area will undergo significant growth, with
population almost quadrupling and employment more than doubling. These significant increases are
consistent with the adopted land uses of the City of San Diego (through the newly updated Otay Mesa
Community Plan) and of the County of San Diego (through the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan).
2050 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan
Approved in 20152011, SANDAG’s San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) 2050 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) was developed to meet San Diego’s long-term mobility needs, better connect
transportation and land use policy decisions, and create a transportation network that will serve the San
Diego region until 2050. The Regional Plan proposes 2050 San Diego RTP proposes 17 new or improved
transit projects, high occupancy vehicle connector routes, highway system completion routes, freeway
connectors, transit facilities, arterial transit improvements, and international transportation projects
within the WFMP planning area and adjacent areas of influence that have been included in the cumulative
analysis. Table 5-4 lists these proposed Regional Plan RTP projects. The Regional Plan 2050 San Diego RTP
is available at http://www.sdforward.com/.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-5
November 2016
Table 5-4 Regional Plan Projects
Project Type Description
Transit Facilities
Trolley Route 540 Blue Line Express – UTC to San Ysidro via Downtown
Trolley Route 562 UTC to San Ysidro via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, Mid-City, Southeastern San Diego,
National City/Chula Vista via Highland Ave/4th Avenue
Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) Route 628 South Bay BRT (Otay Mesa-Downtown) via Otay Ranch/Millenia
BRT Route 640 I-5 – San Ysidro to Downtown & Kearny Mesa via I-5 shoulder lanes/HOV, Downtown,
Hillcrest, Mission Valley
BRT Route 680 and 688/689 Otay Mesa/San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa via I-805 Corridor, Otay
Ranch/Millenia, National City, Southeastern San Diego, Mid-City, Kearny Mesa
BRT South Bay Maintenance Facility
Rapid Route 635 Eastlake/EUC to Palomar Trolley via Main Street Corridor
Rapid Route 638 San Ysidro to Otay Mesa via Otay, SR 905 Corridor
Rapid Route 709 H Street Trolley to Otay Ranch/Millenia via H Street Corridor, Southwestern College
Intermodal San Ysidro Intermodal Transit Center
Managed Lanes/Highways
Managed Lanes (ML) 2 ML on SR 54 between I-5 and SR 125
Highway 4 Lane Conventional Highway on SR 94 between Jamacha Road and Steele Canyon Road
Freeway 8 Lane Freeway on SR 125 between SR 905 and San Miguel Road
Freeway 8 Lane Freeway on SR 125 between San Miguel Road and SR 54
ML 2 ML on SR 125 between SR 54 and SR 94
ML 4 ML on I-805 between SR 905 and Carroll Canyon Road
Freeway 6 Lane Freeway between I-805 and Mexico
Source: SANDAG 2015 2011
5.1 Cumulative Projects Identified in the 2015
WFMP Update
Since adoption of the 2009 WRMP, the planning area has experienced remarkable growth, particularly in
the South District service area (Central and Otay Mesa service areas). This growth has resulted in the build-
out or near build-out of large master planned development projects. As part of water facility planning
efforts, major development projects typically complete SAMP or SPA documents. Both SAMP and SPA
documents provide detailed land use data. As part of the 2015 WFMP Update, SAMPs and SPAs for the
undeveloped and planned projects described in the 2009 WRMP Update were reviewed and their current
status is reported in the following paragraphs. A summary of the major planned developments at ultimate
build-out is described in Table 5-5.
La Presa System Cumulative Projects
The La Presa water system is nearing build‐out. The only remaining areas to develop include the former
Pointe Resort site near the District’s office and the Dictionary Hill area. More specifically, the Dictionary
Hill area includes a new development proposal “Private Drive Estates” for 300 single family units and the
Pointe Resort area includes the Lakeshore project with 100 single family units. These two developments
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-6
November 2016
account for the projected increase in water demand of 15 percent in the system. Each of these areas
would require developer constructed facilities for water service. With limited development remaining no
capacity projects are required.
Hillsdale System Cumulative Projects
The Hillsdale water system is nearly built‐out. There are no capacity projects required throughout the
system as demands are forecasted to change very little and the system is properly designed and operated.
Regulatory System Cumulative Projects
The Regulatory water system is typically a low density service area and is approaching build‐out, although
there are a few areas of infill development anticipated as well as a large development area. The system
consists of several pumped zones (832, 944, 1090, 1296, 1485, 1530 and 1655) and a reduced zone (932).
Several of the pumped zones are in series (832, 944 and 1296) moving water from the west and the border
with the Hillsdale zone to the east where much of the demand in the system resides. Water demands are
projected to increase nearly 30 percent in this system, the largest growth in demand in the North District.
The most significant development will be the proposed Village 14 project, which includes a consolidation
of planned residential units from Villages 16 and 19 which are part of the approved Otay Ranch General
Development Plan. These former units will be “clustered” and shifted to Village 14. Villages 16 and 19 will
be left as open space and will not require water service. Only the higher elevations of Village 14 will be
served by the Regulatory System. The lower elevations of Village 14 will be served by an expansion of
water facilities, from the existing 980 zone, through Proctor Valley and are discussed under the Central
System below. A few smaller infill projects are proposed in the Regulatory System including over a 126
unit condominium project near the District’s office and the Simpson Farm project along Campo Road in
Jamul (about 100 residential units). Planning Areas 16 and 19 are also located in this area and, as presently
entitled, would include estate residential in addition to open space areas.
Central Area System Cumulative Projects
The Central Area water system has substantial growth remaining primarily in eastern Chula Vista and
unincorporated areas in the county. Water demands are projected to increase nearly 50 percent in this
area, which already serves the largest water system by demand in the District.
The most significant new development will be the build‐out of the southern portion of Otay Ranch along
the SR 125, including Villages 10, and Chula Vista’s University site. In addition, to the west of SR 125,
Villages 3 and 4 will complete the remaining pieces of the Otay Ranch development plan area. Within the
current Otay Ranch area, the District will see continued development of Village 2 and the Millenia
Development (formerly known as Eastern Urban Center Planning Area 12). Village 13 (the Resort Parcel)
and Village 14, located north of Lower Otay Reservoir in the county of San Diego are moving through the
entitlement process. As part of their development planning, each project will require major extensions of
District water facilities, including the construction of water storage facilities.
The District requires the preparation of individual project water studies, known as Subarea Master Plans
(SAMPs), to document on-site and off-site facilities that are required to serve developments. For the Otay
Ranch area, completed SAMPs were reviewed and the backbone facilities proposed in the SAMPs were
incorporated into the 2050 InfoWater model and evaluated from an overall Central system planning need.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-7
November 2016
Based on the InfoWater modeling, the water system generally performs well with some minor capacity
constraints. The primary transmission projects will be completed concurrent with development projects
in the south Otay Ranch area. Increased water storage in the 980 zone is a high priority due to existing
system deficiencies. The 711 zone would benefit from the replacement of the existing 711 PS to provide
more efficient operations. The service area size of the 711 and 624 zones require additional pressure
reducing stations to ensure reliable service and provide flexibility to meet peak demands for a higher zone.
This master plan recommends the District include a new 624 zone transmission main from the existing
Otay interconnect pipeline to serve the most southerly reaches of Villages 8, 9 and 10. This would provide
the District flexibility to gravity supply the 624 zone from the 624 reservoirs via the existing Otay
interconnect and avoid pumping water to the 711 zone and then reducing pressure to the 624 zone.
Otay Mesa System Cumulative Projects
The Otay Mesa water system has potential growth in an unincorporated area of the county, known as the
East Otay Mesa Specific Plan area. Additionally, the potential for a new, third, border crossing in this area
will likely drive industrial and commercial development in the area. The major planned developments
include Otay Crossings, Hawano, Otay Business Park and Sunroad. Residential development along the
western boundary of the District, in the city of San Diego, is programmed as part of the Otay Mesa
Community Plan update. High density development is proposed along the Siempre Viva Road corridor.
Otay Ranch GDP
The Otay Ranch GDP represents one of the largest development areas, and will continue to be the largest
growth area, within the WFMP planning area. The Otay Ranch GDP consists of nearly 23,000 gross acres
in the central portion of the planning area, and consists of three distinct parcels: Otay Valley, Proctor
Valley, and San Ysidro Mountains. There are numerous property owners within the Otay Ranch GDP. The
plan consists of 11 urban villages containing approximately 27,000 dwelling units and support commercial
and community facilities. The following describes the three major parcels and undeveloped villages.
Otay Valley Parcel
The Otay Valley Parcel is the largest within the Otay Ranch GDP, containing 9,449 acres. It is generally
bounded by Telegraph Canyon and Otay Lakes roads on the north, Otay Landfill on the west, Brown Field
on the south, and Lower Otay Reservoir on the east. Otay River traverses the south portion of the parcel
and topographically separates most of the parcel from Otay Mesa.
The Otay Valley Parcel involves 11 urban villages with village cores and three planning areas which would
include 8,716 single-family dwelling units, 9,394 multi-family dwelling units, 142 acres of parks, 72 acres
of community purpose facilities, 215 acres of schools, 336 acres of commercial property, 4,228 acres of
open space, 503 acres of transportation uses, and the potential for a University of California (UC) campus
to be located in the southeast portion of the parcel.
The major remaining undeveloped areas within the Otay Valley Parcel include:
■ Eastern Urban Center. The Eastern Urban Center (EUC), also referred to as a portion of Planning
Area 12, is bounded by Birch Road on the north, SR-125 on the west, East Lake Parkway on the
east, and the future extension of Hunte Parkway on the south. This 228.2-acre SPA would consist
mostly of commercial/retail (non-residential) and high-density residential land uses, as well as
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-8
November 2016
several parks, a hotel, and a fire station. A water study for this project was approved by OWD in
January 2008. The EUC is expected to be completed by 2020.
■ Villages 2 and 3. Villages 2 and 3 consist of 779 acres located along the west edge of the Otay
Valley Parcel, south of Olympic Parkway and west of the extension of La Media Road. Village 2 is
located on a large mesa between Poggi Canyon to the north, Wolf Canyon to the south, and Otay
landfill to the west. This project would include 549 single-family dwelling units, 2,379 multi-family
dwelling units, 6 acres of community purpose facilities, 19 acres of commercial, 88 acres of
industrial, 10 acres for a school, and 44 acres of parks.
■ Village 4. Village 4 is comprised of 528 acres in the south portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, and is
bounded by La Media Road on the east, Rock Mountain Road on the north, Wolf Canyon on the
west, and Otay River Valley on the south. Located directly west of Village 8, this project would
include 532 single-family dwelling units, 2 acres of community purpose facilities, 3 acres of parks,
3 acres of commercial, 10 acres for a school, and 263 acres of open space.
■ Village 10 (University Campus). The University Campus is comprised of approximately 440 acres
in the east portion of the Otay Valley Parcel, between the EUC and Salt Creek. The site is
characterized as a broad mesa with slopes along the east boundary leading down to Salt Creek.
Proctor Valley Parcel
The Proctor Valley Parcel consists of 7,895 acres of which approximately 70 percent is designated as open
space. This parcel lies to the northeast of the Otay Valley Parcel and is generally bounded by Otay Lakes
Road and Lower Otay Reservoir on the south, the Upper Otay Reservoir and San Miguel Mountains on the
west, the community of Jamul on the north, and vacant undeveloped land on the east. Approximately
3,000 acres of the Proctor Valley Parcel lie within the WFMP planning area, and 4,933 acres are within the
adjacent areas of influence. The Proctor Valley Parcel, although part of the Otay GDP, will receive water
from OWD’s Central Area System.
The Proctor Valley Parcel involves two urban villages and two planning areas which would include single-
family dwelling units, parks, schools, and open space. Village 13 is also known as the Resort Parcel and
would include a resort village with a resort/hotel, commercial uses, parks, and single and multi-family
residential areas. 3,003 single-family dwelling units, 1,558 multi-family dwelling units, 13 acres of parks,
19 acres of community purpose facilities, 10 acres of schools, 3 acres of commercial property, 5,517 acres
of open space, and 561 acres of transportation uses. Village 13 would include a resort village containing a
golf course, resort center, conference center, commercial uses, parks, low and medium-density residential
areas.
The portion of the Proctor Valley Parcel within the WFMP planning area includes Village 14 and Planning
Areas 16 and 19 would have 2,213 single-family dwelling units, 125 multi-family dwelling units, an
elementary school, fire station/sheriff facility, numerous private and public parks, and commercial
development. which would consist of 1,773 single-family dwelling units, 150 multi-family dwelling units,
an elementary school, and a neighborhood park. The portion of the parcel within Village 13 would include
1,938 single-family/multi-family dwelling units, a resort, commercial development, fire station/sheriff
facility, and public and private parks. the WFMP adjacent areas of influence is known as the Resort Parcel,
or Village 13. The land use mix would include 1,230 single-family dwelling units, 1,408 multi-family
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-9
November 2016
dwelling units, a hotel, a recreation/visitor center, commercial areas, and neighborhood parks. Village 13
is anticipated to be annexed into OWD to receive water service.
San Ysidro Mountain Parcel
The land areas included within the 5,555-acre San Ysidro Mountains Parcel are known as Village 15 and
Planning Area 17. Since adoption of the 2002 WRMP, portions of Village 15 have been purchased for
conservation or mitigation lands, which may not have recorded open space easement has been recorded
as open space preserve. Planning Area 17 is located within the OWD Regulatory System, and is planned
to include estate residential units. 296 single-family units on 800 acres. Over 85 percent of the parcel is
designated as open space. The entire parcel lies within the WFMP adjacent areas of influence.
City of San Diego – Otay Mesa Community Plan
The Otay Mesa Community Planning Area (OMCPA) is a dynamic and rapidly developing area within the
city of San Diego. This 9,300-acre area is bounded by the Otay River Valley and the city of Chula Vista on
the north, the International Border on the south, I-805 on the west, and unincorporated county of San
Diego on the east. The WFMP planning area encompasses the east portion of the OMCPA and a small
notch on the north side of the OMCPA.
It is envisioned that Otay Mesa would be a major employment center and home to a future population of
32,000 residents. The City of San Diego is updating the Otay Mesa Community Plan, originally adopted in
1984. The intent of the update is to establish a framework for future development that would raise the
standard of expectations for Otay Mesa and meet the housing demand projected for the city of San Diego.
The existing OMCPA is largely comprised of industrial and park/open space land uses. The proposed
OMCPA Update alternatives would reduce the amount of industrial development and increase the
percentage of residential development, including the addition of a mixed-use Village Center development
concept. Three alternative land use proposals have been presented to the community, and developers
are proceeding with planning elements based on one or more of these alternatives. The Otay Mesa
Community Plan Update was adopted in 2014.
County of San Diego – South District
The County of San Diego’s East Otay Mesa SPA is bounded by the city of San Diego on the west, the
International Border on the south, and the San Ysidro Mountains on the east. To the immediate north are
the existing 773.5-acre Richard J. Donovan State Correctional Facility and the 519-acre George F. Bailey
and East Mesa County Detention Center.
The East Otay Mesa SPA encompasses approximately 3,300 gross acres and would include 1,418 acres of
mixed industrial uses (43 percent of the SPA) to accommodate wholesale storage and distribution,
warehousing, research services, and general industrial uses. Additional planned land uses include very
low-density rural residential development in the hillside areas (495 acres), a third border crossing facility
(74 acres), commercial uses (987 acres), and open space (292 acres).
There are several development projects being planned within the East Otay Mesa SPA as described below.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-10
November 2016
Sunroad Technical Centre
This 253 acre project will include a 64 acre technology park and also includes 8 acres of commercial space,
approximately 3,200 residential units, and 55 acres of open space. This development will be located north
of Otay Mesa Road and just east of the SR-125 Toll Road. This project would include over 190 acres of
industrial development north of Otay Mesa Road and just east of the SR-125 Toll Road.
In addition to the East Otay Mesa SPA, the county’s South District includes areas immediately north of
Chula Vista, along the SR-125 corridor. Major planned developments in these areas are described below.
Bonita Meadows
This project site is located in the OWD Central Area System, and is generally bounded by Proctor Valley
Road and San Miguel Ranch on the east, Sweetwater Reservoir on the north, and existing development
on the west and south. This project is comprised of approximately 264 gross acres and would include 496
single-family dwelling units and about 2 acres for community purpose facilities. About 209 acres is
intended for open space and roadway purposes.
Simpson Farm
This project site is generally bounded by Campo Road on the south, Jefferson Road on the west, and Olive
Vista Drive on the north, and is within the OWD Regulatory System. This project consists of approximately
158 gross acres and would include 98 low-density, single-family dwelling units on 123 acres, a 13-acre
commercial site, 15 acres for roadways, and 7 acres of open space.
Rancho Jamul Estates
This project site is generally located north of Campo Road and is within the OWD Regulatory System. This
project consists of approximately 788 gross acres and would include 151 very-low-density, single-family
dwelling units and about 163 acres of open space. Two of the three units planned for this development
are complete.
Rancho Jamul Grande
This project site is generally located north of Campo Road, within the OWD Regulatory System, and is
surrounded by the planned Rancho Jamul Estates development project. This project consists of
approximately 130 gross acres and would include 23 very-low-density, single-family dwelling units and
about 45 acres of open space.
5.2 Cumulative Projects in the Unincorporated
Portions of the WFMP Planning Area
The County of San Diego General Plan Update will guide future land development within the county’s
jurisdiction. However, within the unincorporated areas of the county there are a number of ongoing
development projects that are in the approval process, or have recently been approved and are currently
under construction, that are not represented in the General Plan Update land use map. These projects
largely consist of private development proposals that require approvals such as general plan
amendments, specific plans and amendments, tentative maps/tentative parcel maps, and major use
permits. Table 5-5 lists the cumulative projects within the unincorporated portions of the WFMP planning
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-11
November 2016
area and adjacent areas of influence that have been included in the cumulative analysis. A summary of
the types of approvals associated with this project list is provided below.
Table 5-5 Cumulative Projects in the Unincorporated Portions of the WFMP Planning Area
Project Name Required Approvals(1) Community Dwelling Units Acres
Burke Otay Logistics Minor UP East Otay Mesa SP 0 15
California Crossing MUP/TM East Otay Mesa SP 0 29.6
Hawano Subdivision TM East Otay Mesa SP 0 79.6
Otay Ranch Resort Village (GPA 04-03) GPA/SP/TM/REZ/MUP Otay SRP 1,938 1,869
Village 14 and Planning Area 16 and 19 GPA/SP/TM/REZ/MUP East Otay Mesa SP 2,123 1,200
Otay 250 – Sunroad East Otay Mesa Bus. SP/REZ/TM East Otay Mesa SP 3,158 253
International Industrial Park MUP East Otay Mesa SP 0 37
Metropolitan Air Park/Brown Field MPDP/SDP City of San Diego 0 331
National Enterprise Storage MUP East Otay Mesa SP 0 N/A
Otay Business Park TM East Otay Mesa SP 0 161.6
Otay Crossings Commercial Park TM East Otay Mesa SP 0 82
Piper Park TM East Otay Mesa SP 0 24.84
Rabago Tech Business Park TM East Otay Mesa SP 0 71
San Diego Correctional Facility MUP East Otay Mesa SP 0 N/A
SR-11 Extension East Otay Mesa SP 0 N/A
(1) GPA = General Plan Amendment; MPDP = Master Planned Development Permit; MUP = Major Use Permit; REZ = Rezone;
SDP = Site Development Permit; SP = Specific Plan; SRP = Subregional Plan; TM = Tentative Map; TPM = Tentative Parcel Map;
UP = Use Permit.
Source: DPES 2016
Table 5-5 Cumulative Projects in the Unincorporated Portions of the WFMP Planning Area
Project Name Required Approvals(1) Community Dwelling Units Acres
Hoskings Ranch, Genesee Properties TM Jamul/Dulzura 33 1,417.40
Pacific Scene (GPA 06-002) GPA/SP/TM/REZ Jamul/Dulzura 55 85.97
Preski/Gonya (TPM 20720) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 4 40.33
Pijnenburg (TPM 20778) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 5 76.40
Jamul (TPM 20786) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 1 43.69
Hoskings Ranch Road (TPM 20863) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 3 150.27
Swift (TPM 20903) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 1 16.42
Skyline Truck Trail (TPM 21028) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 5 47.78
Ava Loma III (TPM 21039) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 4 87.90
Allen (TPM 21045) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 2 24.14
Hamilton (TPM 21060) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 2 24.29
Renteria (TPM 21107) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 4 60.38
Tibbot (TPM 20686) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 4 35.51
Robnett TPM 20726 TPM Jamul/Dulzura 5 85.95
Titus Project (TPM 20965) TPM Jamul/Dulzura 3 11.10
Fuerte Ranch Estates (GPA 03-006) GPA/REZ/TM Valle De Oro 40 26.89
(1) GPA = General Plan Amendment; REZ = Rezone; SP = Specific Plan; ; TM = Tentative Map; TPM = Tentative Parcel Map.
Source: DPLU 2008l
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-12
November 2016
Table 5-6 List of Cumulative Projects in Vicinity of Proposed Project
Cumulative
Project
Number
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Address/Location
Status/
Permit Type Project Description
1 648-070-21-00 Southeast of the
intersection of Alta
Road and Airway
Road
Tentative Map
5505R
Otay Business Park – Development of a 162-acre property that
would include 58 industrial lots, two drainage/detention basin
lots, open space, and 25 acres of on-site roads.
2 648-070-03-00,
648-080-27-00
Southeast of the
intersection of Alta
Road and Otay Mesa
Road
Tentative Map
5405R
Otay Crossings Commerce Park – Development of a 312-acre
property that would include 56 industrial lots, three open space
lots, and two lots for temporary uses pending the construction
of SR-11 and Otay Mesa East POE.
3 648-070-17-00 Southwest of the
intersection of Alta
Road and Airway
Road
Tentative Map
5566
Development of an 80-acre site with 23 industrial lots on 66
acres, one detention basin lot on 2 acres, and provides
approximately 12 acres of on-site roadways. The precise nature
of land uses will be identified in the future.
4 648-080-27-00,
648-070-03-00,
648-070-21-00,
648-070-14-00,
648-070-33-00,
648-070-09-00
SR-11 would span
from SR-905 to the
Otay Mesa East POE,
located at the U.S./
Mexico border east of
the intersection of
Alta Road and
Siempre Viva Road
Tentative Map
5405R, Tentative
Map 5505R,
Under
Construction
SR-11 and Otay Mesa East POE – Construction of a new toll
highway, with connectors to SR-905 and associated
modifications to SR-905; the Otay Mesa East POE; and a
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility.
5 N/A South of the United
States-Mexico border,
at the intersection of
Colina del Sol and
Calle 12 Nte.
Conceptual
Design Phase
Future Mexico East POE – Construction of a new border crossing
facility in Mexico, connecting to the future Otay Mesa East POE.
6 648-070-33-00 Southwest of the
intersection of Alta
Road and Otay Mesa
Road
Approved/
Completed
Copart Salvage and Auto Auction – Storage and sale of
automobiles on a 38 acre site.
7 648-070-09-00 7113 Otay Mesa Road Approved/
Completed
Travel Plaza – Storage and sale of automobiles on an 81 acre
site.
8 648-040-35-00 7505 Paseo de la
Fuente
Tentative Parcel
Map 21140
Development of three residential lots and off-site improvements
including roads, turn lanes, raised medians, and a bike lane.
9 648-040-36-00 7522 Paseo de la
Fuente
Approved/
Completed
Vulcan Asphalt Plant – A concrete and asphalt batch plant
located on a 13-acre site.
10 648-040-47-00,
648-040-43-00,
648-040-46-00
606 De la Fuente
Court
Approved/
Completed
Otay Mesa Energy Center – Natural gas fired, combined-cycle
electricity power plant.
11 648-040-11-00,
648-040-23-00,
648-040-28-00,
648-040-17-00,
648-040-27-00,
648-040-31-00,
648-040-34-00,
648-040-51-00
Northwest of the
intersection of Alta
Road and Paseo de la
Fuente
Major Use Permit
Modification 06-
074, Major Use
Permit 98-001
Otay Mesa Auto Transfer Facility/Salvage Yards – The recycling,
sales, and storage of automobiles, scrap operations, wood and
green waste recycling facilities, outdoor storage area, and
30,000 square feet of usable open space.
12 648-040-20-00,
648-040-25-00,
648-080-34-00,
648-080-35-00
Northwest of the
intersection of Alta
Road and Paseo de la
Fuente
Tentative Map
5549
International Industrial Park – The project would subdivide 170
acres of vacant land into 10 parcels for technology/ business
park use. 133 acres would be developed, 27 acres placed in open
space, and 10 acres used for circulation streets.
13 646-040-20-00,
646-080-16-00,
648-011-04-00
480 Alta Road Approved/
Completed
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility – A medium security
prison on approximately 780 acres, including housing units,
fitness areas, and associated inmate facilities.
14 648-040-26-00 480 Alta Road Major Use Permit
Modification
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility Level II Infill –
Development of a single correctional facility on a 79-acre site, or
a correctional facility complex on a 105-acre site, to add to the
existing Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. Development
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-13
November 2016
Table 5-6 List of Cumulative Projects in Vicinity of Proposed Project
Cumulative
Project
Number
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number Address/Location
Status/
Permit Type Project Description
would include the addition of either 792 beds or 1,594 beds to
the site.
15 760-110-24-00 446 Alta Road Approved/
Completed
Otay Mesa Detention Facility – A medium security facility
consisting of four inmate housing dormitories, a mess hall,
several classrooms, and staff administration offices. The facility
has a capacity of 360 beds.
16 760-110-24-00 446 Alta Road Approved/
Completed
George F. Bailey Detention Facility – A maximum security facility
that includes six housing units, a medical area, and inmate
processing area, and an administrative area. The facility has a
capacity of 1,380 inmates and 220 staff members.
17 648-050-13-00,
648-080-21-00,
648-080-22-00,
648-090-01-00,
648-090-04-00
Approximately 0.5
mile east of Paseo de
la Fuente
Conceptual
Design Phase
East Otay Mesa Recycling and Landfill Facility – Development of
a recycling center and class III solid waste landfill occupying 340
acres. The site would include a recycling collection center, lined
landfill, scale area, borrow and stockpile area, leachate
collection system, chipping and grinding area, storm water
retention facilities, a new access route from Paseo de la Fuente,
a visitors center, office building, and landfill gas collection and
recovery system.
18 648-040-56-00 7488 Calzada de la
Fuente
Commercial
Structure Plan
Check Permit
PDS2013-
COMACC-000221,
Major Use Permit
3301 06-074-01
Otay Mesa Detention Facility – Development of two detention
facility buildings totaling 512,982 square feet in two phases.
Phase I includes a 1,492 bed detention facility, a dining area,
classrooms, administrative offices, parking spaces, and an
outdoor recreation area. Phase II would increase capacity by
1,408 beds, and include additional parking spaces and a
recreational area.
19 648-010-31-00 440 Alta Road Approved/
Completed
San Diego Regional Firearms Training Facility – An outdoor gun
range and police training center on an approximately 12 acre
site.
General Plan Amendments
General plan amendments are proposals to amend the general plan. Amendments may apply to any part
of the general plan; however, private proposals are typically related to development that is more intense
and/or of a different type than what is allowed under the current general plan. As such, they are
commonly combined with specific plans, tentative maps, and/or major use permits.
Specific Plans/Specific Plan Amendments
Specific plans and specific plan amendments must comply with the current General Plan. One of the
existing specific plans (Pacific Scene) is accompanied by a general plan amendment for higher intensity
development than would be allowed under the existing General Plan. Additional specific plans include
development in Villages 13 and 14 and Planning Areas 16 and 19 as described above in Section 5.1. These
projects have This project has already been identified as part of the general plan amendment review
process described above.
Tentative Maps/Tentative Parcel Maps
Tentative maps are subdivisions of land into five or more lots. Tentative parcel maps are subdivisions of
land into four or fewer lots with the option to include a remainder lot (totaling no more than five lots).
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-14
November 2016
Major Use Permits
Major use permits are used to permit specific unique uses. They include both large projects such as
churches and camps and small projects such as cellular telecommunications sites. Major use permits are
not directly implemented by the existing General Plan although they must comply with its goals and
policies. The San Diego County Zoning Ordinance specifies the locations, specific uses, and conditions for
application of major use permits. No major use permits were identified within the WFMP planning area.
5.3 Cumulative Projects on Tribal Lands
(Sycuan Reservation)
OWD currently does not provide water service to tribal lands. However, the Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay
Indians (the “Tribe”) has the potential to annex into the OWD, SDCWA, and MWD service areas (refer to
Figure 3-1). If the annexation is successful, OWD will develop facilities outside the boundaries of the tribal
lands to deliver water to the Tribe. The Tribe will be responsible for the development of all internal
delivery systems required within tribal lands, and will also be responsible for compliance with any
applicable environmental requirements in connection with such facilities.
Planned development within the Sycuan tribal lands would include a new hotel (300 rooms) and
commercial center (10.7 acres), and expansion of the casino (100,000 square feet), medical center (21,200
square feet) and fire/police department (1,600 square feet). These projects were considered as part of
the cumulative analysis.
5.4 Cumulative Regional Energy and Utility
Projects
The projected growth of the San Diego region will necessitate the development of new energy and utility
projects to serve the forecasted population until 2030 and beyond. These projects include energy,
telecommunications, railroad, water, wastewater, and desalination projects. A discussion of the proposed
regional energy and utility projects in the WFMP planning area and adjacent areas of influence is provided
below.
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the State’s primary energy policy and planning agency. The five
major responsibilities of the CEC include: 1) forecasting future energy needs and keeping historical energy
data; 2) licensing thermal power plants 50 megawatts (MW) or larger; 3) promoting energy efficiency
through appliance and building standards; 4) developing energy technologies and supporting renewable
energy; and 5) planning and directing the State’s response to an energy emergency. Table 5-65-7 lists the
major energy projects that are under construction and/or permitted pending construction in the vicinity
of the WFMP planning area and adjacent areas of influence. These projects were considered as part of
the cumulative analysis.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-15
November 2016
Table 5-6 Regional Energy Projects
Name Location Description Projected Completion Date
Pio Pico Energy Center Western San Diego County 300 MW natural gas-fired, simple cycle
power plant September 2016
MMC Chula Vista Expansion –
MMC Energy Inc. San Diego County 110 MW simple-cycle electrical power
plant facility December 2009
Source: CEC 20162008
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately owned telecommunications, electric,
natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, passenger transportation companies, and authorizes video
franchises in California. CPUC maintains an online project database. Projects on this database that have
been considered in the cumulative impact analysis are listed in Table 5-75-8.
Table 5-7 CPUC Projects
Name Location Description
Estimated Construction Completion
Salt Creek Substation
Project San Diego County
Construction of a new 120 MVA 69/12 kilovolt (kV)
distribution substation in Chula Vista
Construction and operation of a new 69kV single circuit
powerline, approximately 5 miles in length, running between
the proposed Salt Creek Substation and the existing Miguel
Substation
Construction and operation of an underground loop-in of the
69kV powerline to the proposed Salt Creek Substation
Installation of a new 69kV powerline position at the existing
Miguel Substation to connect the new powerline
Late 2017
Source: CPUC 2016
5.5 Cumulative Impacts by Resource
Air Quality
Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to criteria air pollutants is the SDAB. Cumulative development is not expected to result in a significant
impact in terms of conflicting with, or obstructing implementation of, the SDAPCD air quality management
plans and the California SIP. As stated within Section 4.1.3.1 (Issue 1), calculations of future capacity needs
under the 2015 WFMP Update were based upon growth assumptions from SANDAG, as were the SDAPCD
San Diego 2009 RAQS and the SIP. As such, the 2015 WFMP Update is consistent with the applicable
SDAPCD air quality management plan and the SIP, and it would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable contribution
would occur.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-16
November 2016
Consistency with Air Quality Standards
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to criteria air pollutants is the SDAB. As noted in Section 4.1.2.1 (Federal Regulatory Framework) of this
PEIR, the SDAB designated as being in non-attainment for the federal standards PM10 and PM2.5, the state
1-hour standard for ozone and the state and federal 8-hour standard for ozone. Therefore, the baseline
cumulative impact to the SDAB due to air pollution from stationary and mobile source emissions
associated with basin-wide polluting activities is significant.
As discussed in Section 4.1.3.2 (Issue 2) of this PEIR, all CIP construction projects proposed under the 2015
WFMP Update would be required to implement standard construction practices to reduce fugitive dust
emissions and emissions associated with construction equipment (Air-SCP-1 and Air-SCP-2).
Implementation of mitigation measure Air-1 would ensure that pollutant emissions generated from
construction activities would be reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, operational
emissions associated with proposed CIP pump stations, reservoirs and pipelines would be negligible.
Therefore, potential air emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed CIP
projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the local cumulative impact area
represented by the SDAB.
Biological Resources
The cumulative impact of concern for biological resources would be the potential regional loss of sensitive
plants, animals, and vegetation communities. As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context
for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative to sensitive biological resources includes the natural
habitats within and adjacent to CIP construction sites throughout the planning area. The cumulative
projects listed in Tables 5-4 through 5-75-8 of this PEIR would have the potential to contribute to
cumulative direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plants and animals, and sensitive habitats. Sensitive
species are designated as such due to their scarcity (e.g., threatened and endangered) throughout their
habitat ranges. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to sensitive biological resources within and
adjacent to the planning area (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is significant.
As discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 of this PEIR, construction of some CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update
would have the potential to directly and indirectly impact sensitive plant and animal species and their
associated habitats. However, implementation of performance measures Bio-1A through Bio-1GE would
reduce these project-related impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, with implementation of
performance measures Bio-1A through Bio-1GE, development of CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update
would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of sensitive biological resources
within the regional cumulative impact area.
Cultural Resources
Archeological Resources
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to archaeological resources includes the planning area. Ground disturbance (e.g., grading, trenching,
excavation) associated with implementation of some of the cumulative planned developments could have
significant impacts to archaeological resources. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-17
November 2016
archaeological resources due to future development within the planning area (i.e., regional cumulative
impact area) is significant.
As discussed in Section 4.3.3.2 of this document, ground-disturbing activities within native soils associated
with CIP pipelines, reservoirs and pump stations could have significant impacts to potential archaeological
resources. However, implementation of a cultural resources monitoring and data recovery program by a
qualified archaeologist would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore,
with implementation of mitigation/performance measures Cul-2A through Cul-2D, construction of the
above-listed CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the loss of archaeological resources within the regional cumulative impact area.
Human Remains
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to Native American human remains includes the planning area. Ground disturbance (e.g., grading,
trenching, excavation) associated with implementation of some of the cumulative planned developments
could have significant impacts to human remains. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to human
remains due to future development within the planning area (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is
significant.
As discussed in Section 4.3.3.3 of this document, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would be
required to comply with provisions of the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC
Section 5097.98 relevant to the discovery, treatment, evaluation, and reburial of human remains.
Therefore, with implementation of Cul-SCP-1, the construction of certain CIP projects under the 2015
WFMP Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of Native American
human remains within the regional cumulative impact area.
Energy
Once constructed, the operation of the proposed CIP projects would require a minimal amount of energy
to operate. In addition, the implementation of measures Ene-PDF-1 through Ene-PDF-4 would ensure that
the CIP projects would employ energy-efficient features and prevent project-related lighting from
disrupting adjacent native habitats. Therefore, the contribution of the 2015 WFMP Update would not
have a cumulatively considerable contribution to inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary use of energy.
Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, impacts relative to seismic hazards and other geologic/soil conditions
(e.g., fault rupture, groundshaking, ground failure, liquefaction/collapse, landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, and expansive soils) are generally specific to the CIP project sites. Therefore, these issues are
not subject to a cumulative impact analysis, and are not addressed in this section.
Soil Erosion
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to soil erosion encompasses the Sweetwater River, Otay River, and Tijuana River watersheds directly
downstream from CIP construction sites (refer to Figure 4.7-1, Hydrological Units, of this PEIR). This is
because rainfall erosion of soils exposed by land disturbance activities can lead to downstream
sedimentation effects, as sediment-laden runoff is carried along drainage facilities and natural water
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-18
November 2016
courses by storm water flows. Land disturbance activities may include agricultural practices, cattle grazing
and land development (e.g., vegetation clearing, grading, excavation, trenching), and these activities are
expected to continue in the vicinity of the Sweetwater River Otay River, and Tijuana River watersheds.
Even with the promulgation of NPDES storm water regulations, land disturbance associated with
development activities throughout these watersheds continues to contribute, however incrementally, to
the overall sedimentation problems observed in runoff flows that discharge into watercourses, lagoons,
and eventually the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to the Sweetwater River,
Otay River, and Tijuana River watersheds (i.e., local cumulative impact areas) due to downstream
sedimentation effects from soil erosion associated with basin-wide land disturbance activities is
significant.
As discussed in Sections 4.5.3.2 and 4.5.3.3, all CIP construction projects under the 2015 WFMP Update
would be required to implement recommendations provided in site-specific geotechnical investigations,
and standard erosion control measures in accordance with NPDES regulations. Therefore, with
implementation of Geo-PDF-1, Geo-SCP-2 and Geo-SCP-3, land disturbance activities associated with the
CIP construction projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to downstream
sedimentation effects from soil erosion within the local cumulative impact areas.
Paleontological Resources
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to
paleontological resources encompasses the paleontologically sensitive geologic formations within the
planning area. Excavation activities associated with land development within these areas could have
significant impacts to paleontological resources. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to
paleontological resources due to excavation activities associated with future land development within the
regional cumulative impact area is significant.
As discussed in Section 4.5.3.5 of this PEIR, paleontological monitoring would be conducted during
excavation activities for certain CIP projects where there is a potential to impact such resources, and any
significant fossils encountered would be salvaged and curated. Therefore, with implementation of
mitigation/ performance measures Geo-5A through Geo-5D, excavation activities associated with certain
CIP construction projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the loss of
paleontological resources within the regional cumulative impact area.
Global Climate Change
Due to the nature of assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of global climate change,
impacts can currently only be analyzed from a cumulative context. Therefore, the analysis provided in
Section 4.6.3.1 (Issue 1) includes the analysis of both the 2015 WFMP Update and cumulative impacts.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impacts relative to mudflows are generally specific to the CIP project sites; therefore, this issue is not
subject to a cumulative impact analysis, and is not addressed in this section.
Water Quality
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to water quality standards encompasses the portions of the Tijuana, Otay, and Sweetwater watersheds
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-19
November 2016
directly downstream from the CIP projects (see Figure 4.7-1). Water quality is an issue within these
watersheds, as documented in the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) reports. Land
disturbance and development activities are expected to continue in the vicinity of these watersheds. Even
with the promulgation of NPDES storm water regulations, land disturbance and development activities
throughout these watersheds continue to contribute, however incrementally, to the overall water quality
problems observed in runoff flows that discharge into watercourses, lagoons, and eventually the Pacific
Ocean. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to the Otay, Sweetwater, and Tijuana watersheds (i.e.,
regional cumulative impact area) due to downstream water pollution effects is significant.
As discussed in Section 4.7.3.1 (Issue 1), all CIP construction contractors are required to implement
construction and post-construction BMPs in accordance with either an Erosion Control Plan (for projects
that would result in less than one acre of land disturbance), pursuant to the storm water regulations or
ordinances of the local agency jurisdiction within which the CIP project occurs, or in accordance with a
SWPPP (for any project greater than one acre in size), pursuant to the NPDES General Construction Permit.
In addition, as described in Hyd-SCP-1, all CIP construction contractors are required to implement a safety
plan for the transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with CIP construction
activities. These plans would also identify construction BMPs to reduce impacts to surface water quality
due to storm water runoff pollution from construction sites including, but not limited to, erosion
control/stabilizing measures in cleared areas and on graded slopes (e.g., geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls, soil
binders, temporary hydroseeding); sediment controls (e.g., temporary inlet filters, silt fences, fiber rolls,
gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, check dams, street sweeping, energy dissipaters); and stabilized
construction access points (e.g., temporary gravel or pavement) and sediment stockpiles (e.g., silt fences
and tarps). For long-term operations at CIP reservoirs and pump stations that would involve the transport,
storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, OWD would prepare and implement a HMBP and obtain
and comply with a County DEH permit, as described in Hyd-PDF-1. The HMBP would identify post-
construction BMPs to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality due to storm water runoff
pollution from developed sites including, but not limited to, containment of chemical spills (e.g.,
absorbent, physical barriers, or other methods) by trained employees using proper protective equipment
and disposal of waste in a properly labeled container; and notification of emergency response agencies
for major chemical spills. Therefore, construction and operation activities associated with the CIP projects
would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to downstream water pollution effects within
the regional cumulative impact area.
Groundwater Quality, Supplies and Recharge
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to groundwater quality, supplies and recharge encompasses the San Diego Formation, Sweetwater, and
Otay Valley groundwater basins (Figure 4.7-3). As documented in the Groundwater Assessment Study
(MWD 2007), groundwater quality continues to be a problem in the Sweetwater Basin, although the
quality of groundwater is unknown in the Otay Valley Basin. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact to
these basins (e.g., the local cumulative impact area) due to groundwater quality is significant.
As stated in Section 4.7.3.2 (Issue 2), P2391 (PS - Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm), P2554 (624/340
PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue), P2405 (PL - 624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road),
P2579 (PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Rehabilitation), and P2392 (PS -Lower Otay PS
Replacement and Expansion - from 12,500 to 18,000 gpm) would be adjacent to the Sweetwater and Otay
Valley Basins. Construction, development and operation of these CIP projects, combined with the
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-20
November 2016
cumulative projects identified in Chapter 4 of this PEIR, could potentially lead to discharges that could
impact groundwater quality in nearby groundwater aquifers. However, implementation of Geo-SCP-2,
Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, and Hyd-PDF-1 would reduce potential groundwater quality impacts due to storm
water runoff pollution associated with construction, development and long-term operations at P2391
(PS - Perdue WTP Pump Station, 10,000 gpm), P2554 (624/340 PRS at Energy Way and Nirvana Avenue),
P2405 (PL - 624/340 PRS, Heritage Road and Hard Rock Road), P2579 (PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump
Station Rehabilitation), and P2392 (PS -Lower Otay PS Replacement and Expansion - from 12,500 to 18,000
gpm). Therefore, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to groundwater quality impacts within the local cumulative impact area.
As documented in the Groundwater Assessment Study (MWD 2007), the Sweetwater Basins are not within
an overdraft state, and the overdraft state of the Otay Valley Basin is unknown. Therefore, the baseline
cumulative impact to these basins (i.e., the local cumulative impact area) due to groundwater recharge is
less than significant. In addition, there would be no impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge from
CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update. As such, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would
not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to groundwater supplies/recharge within the local
cumulative impact area.
Alteration of Drainage Patterns
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of various cumulative water
quality and hydrological impacts relative to localized alteration of drainage patterns encompasses the
portions of Sweetwater, Otay, and Tijuana watersheds directly downstream from the CIP projects (see
Figure 4.7-1) and the San Diego Formation, Sweetwater, and Otay Valley groundwater basins (see Figure
4.7-3). Land disturbance and development activities are expected to continue in the vicinity of these
watersheds and basins. Even with the promulgation of NPDES storm water regulations, land disturbance
and development activities throughout these watersheds and basins continue to contribute, however
incrementally, to the overall surface and groundwater quality and flooding problems in the planning area
and in the downstream watercourses and lagoons leading to the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the baseline
cumulative impact to the Sweetwater, Otay, and Tijuana watersheds and the San Diego Formation,
Sweetwater, and Otay Valley groundwater basins (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) due to water
quality and flooding effects from discharges of storm water associated with alterations of drainage
patterns is significant.
As discussed in Section 4.7.4.2, with implementation of Geo-SCP-2, Geo-SCP-3, Hyd-SCP-1, Hyd-PDF-1 and
Hyd-PDF-2, construction and operation of CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in
a cumulatively considerable contribution to surface and groundwater quality impacts, and impacts to
groundwater supplies/recharge, flooding, and exceedance of capacity of storm water drainage facilities,
due to alteration of localized drainage patterns within the regional cumulative impact area.
Landform Alteration and Visual Aesthetics
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable
development within the planning area (refer to Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 4-6 through 5-10 in Chapter 4 of
this PEIR), could result in cumulative aesthetic effects related to scenic vistas and visual character. Visual
impacts associated with glare tend to occur on a localized level, and has limited potential for related
cumulative effects. Therefore, this issue is not subject to a cumulative impact analysis, and is not
addressed in this section.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-21
November 2016
Scenic Vistas
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to
scenic vistas encompasses the public viewsheds from which above-ground CIP projects would be visible.
As discussed in Section 4.8.3.1 (Issue 1), implementation of Aes-PDF-1 would ensure that the CIP projects
within the 2015 WFMP Update do not disrupt any publicly available scenic vistas. Therefore, with
implementation of Aes-PDF-1, development of the CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update would not
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to scenic vistas within the local cumulative impact areas.
Visual Character
As described in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to
visual character encompasses the public viewsheds from which above-ground CIP projects would be
visible. The City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and County of San Diego have all projected growth and
development within the portions of their jurisdictions that occur within the WFMP planning area. As
identified in Table 4-7 in Chapter 4 of this PEIR, a total of 17,424 rResidential dwelling units spanning 5,425
acres, 1,085 acres of commercial development, and 7,086 acres of industrial development would occur
within these jurisdictions and the WFMP planning area, and could result in significant visual character
impacts. In addition, several other planned developments listed in Table 5-5 4-6 and Tables 4-8 through
5-10 in Chapter 4 of this PEIR could result in significant visual character impacts. Therefore, the baseline
cumulative impact to visual character due to construction and development within the WFMP planning
area (i.e., local cumulative impact areas) is significant.
As discussed in Section 4.8.3.2 (Issue 2), all disturbed areas remaining after construction of the CIP projects
would be landscaped, and appropriate building materials and colors would be used for CIP reservoirs,
pump stations, pipelines, and groundwater well buildings to visually blend them in with their
surroundings. Therefore, with implementation of Aes-PDF-1, development of the CIP projects under the
2015 WFMP Update would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to visual character
impacts within the local cumulative impact areas.
Land Use and Planning
Cumulative impacts are evaluated for environmental issues for which the impacts associated with
implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would be significant or less than significant. Since
implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not physically divide an established community or
conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation of the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, or City
of San Diego, these issues are not addressed in this section.
Conflicts with HCPs/NCCPs
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to conflicts with HCPs/NCCPs includes all of the open space reserves within and adjacent to the planning
area, as identified by the MSCP subarea plans of the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of
San Diego. Land disturbance and construction activities associated with some of the cumulative projects
identified in Chapter 4 of this PEIR may result in indirect impacts to biological resources within these MSCP
reserves (e.g., downstream siltation, storm water runoff pollution, lighting, noise, etc.). Therefore, the
baseline cumulative impact to the MSCP reserves within and adjacent to the planning area (i.e., regional
cumulative impact area) due to indirect effects and conflicts with land use adjacency guidelines is
significant.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-22
November 2016
As discussed in Section 4.9.3.1 of this PEIR, all CIP projects under the 2015 WFMP Update that would be
located within or adjacent to a MSCP reserve would be designed to incorporate the respective land use
adjacency guidelines of the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of San Diego MSCP Subarea
Plans. These guidelines include, but are not limited to, landscaping with native plants indigenous to the
area; fencing or other barriers to prevent uncontrolled human access; installation of drainage features to
prevent discharge of storm water runoff pollutants; installation of acoustical louvers in pump station
buildings to reduce operational noise levels; and temporary noise walls or berms to reduce construction
noise levels. Therefore, with implementation of LU-PDF-1 through LU-PDF-3, Noi-PDF-1, and mitigation
measure Bio-1C potential indirect impacts from these CIP projects on biological resources in and adjacent
to the MSCP reserves would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to conflicts with
HCPs/NCCPs within the regional cumulative impact area.
Noise
Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and decreases in magnitude as distance from the source
increases. Cumulative development in the areas immediately adjacent to CIP projects could result in a
cumulative impact in terms of a substantial increase in ambient noise levels if multiple projects were
constructed simultaneously. Consequently, only NSLU adjacent to CIP construction sites and pump
stations, and NSLU adjacent to roadways and freeways used by construction-related traffic along which
the projected increase in CIP construction traffic may exceed noise standards, would be affected by
cumulative noise impacts.
As discussed in Section 4.10.3.1 of this PEIR, substantial permanent ambient noise increases could
potentially result from transportation noise sources and operational noise sources. The maintenance for
most of the CIP projects may require approximately one visit per day by OWD employees. CIP projects
located within the Regulatory potable water operating system may require as many as 5-10 trips per day.
Due to the minimal number and the geographic distribution of vehicular trips associated with the
maintenance of the CIP projects, audible transportation noise increases in comparison to existing
conditions would be negligible. In addition, operational noise sources from CIP water storage projects and
pipelines would be negligible. Implementation of Noi-PDF-1 would reduce potential operational noise
impacts from CIP pump station and water supply projects to a less than significant level. Therefore,
operation of the proposed CIP projects would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels
and would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the local cumulative impacts
areas surrounding each CIP project site.
Temporary Increases in Ambient Noise
As discussed in Section 4.10.3.2 (Issue 2) of this PEIR, all CIP construction projects under the 2015 WFMP
Update would be required to comply with applicable local noise ordinances and regulations specifying
sound control (Noi-SCP-1), and implement the OWD Standard Specifications for Explosives and Blasting
(Noi-SCP-2). Therefore, temporary noise levels associated with CIP construction activities would not result
in a cumulatively considerable contribution to noise impacts within the local cumulative impact areas
surrounding each CIP project site.
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-23
November 2016
Generation of Groundborne Vibration
Cumulative development within the planning area is not likely to result in the exposure of people to, or
the generation of, excessive groundborne vibration due to the localized nature of vibration impacts, and
the likelihood that all construction would not occur at the same time or at the same location. Therefore,
temporary impacts from excessive groundborne vibration associated with cumulative development and
CIP construction activities would not be cumulatively considerable.
With regard to cumulative groundborne vibration due to CIP operations, it is not expected that growth
within the planning area would lead to a cumulatively significant impact. The land uses surrounding the
CIP project sites are predominantly residential and open space, and to a lesser degree commercial and
industrial. These land uses, with the exception of industrial, would not result in groundborne vibration.
Therefore, permanent impacts from excessive groundborne vibration associated with CIP operations and
existing/planned land uses surrounding each CIP project site would not be cumulatively considerable.
Public Safety
Impacts relative to listed hazardous materials sites and emergency response and evacuation plans are
generally specific to the CIP sites; therefore, these issues are not subject to a cumulative impact analysis,
and are not addressed in this section.
As indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR, the geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts relative
to the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and associated accidental releases,
encompasses the roadways and freeways used by vehicles transporting hazardous materials to and from
the CIP construction sites, and the CIP reservoirs and pump stations that involve the use of hazardous
materials (e.g., chlorine gas for injection treatment of the potable water supply). Construction activities
associated with many of the cumulative projects listed in Tables 4-6 through 4-9 in Chapter 4 of this PEIR
could also involve the transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and associated accidental
releases, along the circulation system within the planning area. Therefore, the baseline cumulative impact
to public safety from potential exposure to hazardous materials related to the transport, use, and disposal
of hazardous materials, as well as the associated accidental releases into the environment and near
schools within the planning area circulation system (i.e., regional cumulative impact area) is significant.
As discussed in Section 4.11.3.1 (Issue 1) of this PEIR, all CIP construction contractors are required to
implement a HMBP to allow for the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials
during CIP construction activities. In addition, OWD is required to implement a post-construction HMBP
to allow for the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials for CIP reservoir, pump
station and groundwater well operation. Therefore, with implementation of Haz-SCP-1 and Haz-PDF-1,
the construction and operation of CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to public hazards related to the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials, and associated accidental releases into the environment and near schools, within the regional
cumulative impact area.
Transportation/Traffic
Cumulative impacts are evaluated for environmental issues for which the impacts associated with
implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would be significant or less than significant. Impacts relative
to transportation and traffic are generally specific to the CIP project sites at which the projected increase
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 5-24
November 2016
in construction traffic would exceed 50 peak-hour trips as indicated in Table 5-1 of this PEIR. As described,
construction would take place throughout the planning area so that even if multiple CIPs are under
construction simultaneously, construction would not be concentrated in one area. Such incremental
increases in vehicle trips would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
intersections, street segments and freeways within the planning area. Therefore, these issues are not
subject to a cumulative impact analysis, and are not addressed in this section.
5.6 References
Atkins. 2016. Draft 2015 Otay Water District Water Facilities Master Plan Update. May.
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 6-1
November 2016
Chapter 6 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR disclose the reasons why various possible
environmental effects of a proposed project are found not to be significant and, therefore, are not
discussed in detail in the EIR. Environmental issues found to have potentially significant impacts are
addressed in Chapter 4 of this PEIR. Chapter 4 also discusses issues that were found to have no potential
for a significant impact under the subsections titled “CEQA Checklist Items Deemed Not Significant or Not
Applicable to the 2015 WFMP Update” found at the end of each topical section. However, several issues
that were found to have no potential for a significant impact or are not applicable to the 2015 WFMP
Update did not fall under the topics analyzed in Chapter 4, and are therefore discussed in Sections 6.1 and
6.2 below.
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that all aspects of a project be considered when evaluating
its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of
this analysis, the following three issues are also addressed in this chapter:
■ Growth-inducing impacts (Section 6.3);
■ Significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided upon implementation of the 2015
WFMP Update (Section 6.4); and
■ Significant irreversible environmental effects associated with implementation of the 2015 WFMP
Update (Section 6.5).
6.1 Effects Found Not Significant
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in significant impacts to agricultural
resources, and mineral resources, as discussed below and, therefore, further analysis in this PEIR is not
necessary.
Agricultural Resources
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update 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?
According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) (FMMP 2012), none of the CIPs
under the 2015 WFMP Update would be on land designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur as a result
of implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update, and no further analysis is required.
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 6-2
November 2016
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
According to the FMMP, there are no portions of the planning area that are within or adjacent to a
Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 53901 of the California Government Code,
local agency zoning ordinances do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production,
generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water; therefore, agricultural zoning would not apply
to CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update. Accordingly, the 2015 WFMP Update would not conflict with any
Williamson Act contracts or existing zoning for agricultural uses, and no further analysis is required.
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)) or
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
According to review of land use and zoning maps for San Diego County, none of the CIPs under the 2015
WFMP Update would be on land zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production. Therefore,
no impacts to forest lands or timberlands would occur as a result of implementation of the 2015 WFMP
Update, and no further analysis is required (County 2011).
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update 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?
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses.
Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur as a result of implementation of the 2015
WFMP Update, and no further analysis is required.
Mineral Resources
Would implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the State, or result in the loss
of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
The majority of the western portion of the planning area is designated as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ 3;
mineral resources potentially present) by the County of San Diego (County 2008), and portions of the
Sweetwater and Otay river valleys and some of the minor drainages feeding into these rivers are
designated as MRZ 2 (mineral resources present). Several of the new CIP reservoirs and pump stations
under the 2015 WFMP Update would be constructed on disturbed sites adjacent to existing OWD facilities,
and therefore would not result in the loss of potential mineral resources. Any CIPs constructed on
undeveloped land would retain small development footprints CIPs and, therefore, would not result in a
significant loss of known mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites, and no
further analysis is required.
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 6-3
November 2016
6.2 CEQA Checklist Items Not Applicable to
the 2015 WFMP Update
The following four topics were not analyzed in Chapter 4 of this PEIR because they are not applicable to
the 2015 WFMP Update: population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service
systems. The rationale for these findings are explained below.
Population and Housing
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not directly induce substantial growth, or displace
substantial numbers of existing housing or people, otherwise necessitating the construction of new or
replacement housing elsewhere. Key Project facilities identified in the 2015 WFMP would be developed
in stages corresponding to planned population growth and development within the OWD service area.
OWD does not approve or dictate how growth occurs. Therefore, there would be no impact to population
housing, and no further analysis is required. The potential for the 2015 WFMP Update to induce
substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly, is discussed in more detail in Section 6.3 below.
Public Services
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not result in impacts associated with maintaining
acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services,
police protection services, schools, parks, or any other public facilities. Each respective planning
jurisdiction’s General Plan within OWD’s service area provides a policy framework for providing public
services. The policies address maintaining and improving necessary response times, maintaining a
sufficient number of police officers and firefighters per capita, maintaining adequate amounts and types
of equipment to provide necessary levels of service, maintaining and constructing adequate new
firefighting infrastructure, incorporating public safety in design of structures and services, maintaining
sufficient levels of fireflow, and coordinating development with planning for fire services, etc. As such,
implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not require provision of new or physically altered fire
protection, police protection, school, and park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts. Therefore, there would be no impact to public services, and no further analysis is
required.
Recreation
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not impact the use of parks or other recreational
facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor
would it include require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which may have an adverse
physical effect on the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact to recreational facilities, and no
further analysis is required.
Utilities and Service Systems
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not require increased capacity for wastewater
treatment or sewer conveyance facilities or require or result in the construction or expansion of new
wastewater treatment facilities, and therefore would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the San Diego RWQCB. Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would require construction of new,
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 6-4
November 2016
and expansion of existing, OWD water facilities, the environmental effects of which are addressed in this
PEIR. The 2015 WFMP Update would require the construction of limited storm water drainage facilities at
new CIP reservoir and pump station sites (refer to Section 4.7.3.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this
PEIR for discussion of required drainage basins and brow ditches). However, any required storm water
drainage facilities have been included in the overall disturbance footprints for the new CIP reservoirs and
pump stations, for which the corresponding environmental effects have been thoroughly addressed
within this PEIR.
As stated in Section 3.4.1 (Purpose, Project Description) of this PEIR, the primary purpose of the 2015
WFMP Update is to ensure an adequate, reliable, flexible, and cost effective potable and recycled water
storage and delivery system commensurate with growth within the planning area and adjacent areas of
influence, consistent with SANDAG forecasts, through 2050. Because the 2015 WFMP Update would be
in response to projected growth in the region (refer to Section 6.3 below), it would not result in the need
for new or expanded water supplies. Rather, the evaluation of water supply capacity is typically conducted
by lead agencies and water districts as part of the required CEQA approvals for new development or
redevelopment projects that would require additional water supplies to serve those projects.
As discussed in Section 4.11 (Public Safety) of this PEIR, all demolition debris and construction waste
associated with construction of CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update would be properly handled and
disposed of, in accordance with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Moreover, the long-term operations of CIP reservoirs and pump stations under the 2015 WFMP Update
would not generate solid waste that would impact the permitted capacity of area landfills.
6.3 Growth Inducement
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), an EIR must include a discussion of the ways in which
a proposed project could directly or indirectly foster economic development or population growth, and
how that growth would affect the surrounding environment. Growth can be induced in a number of ways,
including the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of economic activity within
the region. The discussion of the “removal of obstacles to growth” relates directly to the removal of
infrastructure limitations or regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of
project approval. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), “it must not be assumed that growth
in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” The CEQA
Guidelines require a discussion of growth inducement, but not speculation as to when, where and what
form growth may occur, as such speculation does not provide the reader with accurate or useful
information about the project’s potential effects.
Future growth rates and associated water demands within the planning area were estimated within the
2015 WFMP Update to identify the CIPs that would be needed to serve OWD customers. As discussed in
Chapter 4 (Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation) of this PEIR, data on future growth were obtained from
SANDAG, the City of Chula Vista, and recent forecasts developed by the OWD. The following sections
discuss these data sources, the growth rates estimated for the planning area, and how this data relates to
direct and indirect growth inducement with regards to implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update.
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 6-5
November 2016
San Diego Association of Governments
SANDAG is a regional planning agency comprised of 18 representatives from city and county governments
within the San Diego area. SANDAG is the regional authority for the creation of planning, transportation,
and growth forecast documents. The growth projections in the 2015 WFMP Update are based partly on
SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (RGF) (Regional Transportation Plan 2050, Technical
Appendix 2). The 2050 RGF provides a long-range forecast of population, housing, and employment that
are used as a basic resource by elected officials, planners, academics, and the general public, and as the
basis for the 2050 RTP. As such, the planning horizon for both the RGF and the 2015 WFMP Update is the
year 2050.
With the exception of the portion of the planning area within Chula Vista, the 2015 WFMP Update utilized
land use data from SANDAG as a basis for estimating and predicting future land use types and associated
water consumption. As various land uses have different water requirements, these land use estimations
were used to predict and size capacities for CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update.
City of Chula Vista
The southern portion of the planning area is within the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. Between the
time frame of the 2009 WFMP and the present 2015 WFMP Update, Chula Vista has grown by nearly 2,000
new residential units (Atkins 2016). As such, future capacity and water consumption requirements within
the portion of the planning area encompassed by Chula Vista were estimated by utilizing residential
growth forecasts for the years 2015 through 2020 (Chula Vista 2015). In addition, the 2015 WFMP Update
utilized information within Sub Area Master Plans (SAMPs), Specific/Sectional Plan Areas (SPAs), and the
Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) for specific development areas throughout Chula Vista.
OWD Forecasts
Estimated future capacity needs within the planning area were also calculated by utilizing the OWD’s
known water consumption data from water meters. This data was applied to land use predictions
obtained from SANDAG and the City of Chula Vista to estimate future water consumption within
undeveloped portions of the planning area.
Direct and Indirect Growth-Inducing Effects
Implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not directly create or induce growth within the planning
area because the OWD has no land use authority and cannot approve land development. As stated in
Section 6.3 above, indirect growth may result from the removal of physical impediments or restrictions to
growth, as well as the removal of planning impediments resulting from land use plans and policies. In this
context, physical growth impediments may include nonexistent or inadequate access to an area or the
lack of essential public services (e.g., sewer service), while planning impediments may include restrictive
zoning and/or general plan designations.
Many of the CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update would be constructed at sites that contain existing OWD
facilities; therefore, these projects would not result in indirect growth effects. The construction of new
CIP facilities within undeveloped areas would be phased commensurate with planned growth; therefore,
these projects would also not result in indirect growth effects because the timing of implementation is
intended to serve the water delivery needs of specified planned developments as they are approved. In
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 6-6
November 2016
other words, none of the CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update would be developed in anticipation of
unforeseen or unplanned future growth. Therefore, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would
not be growth-inducing because it would not remove an impediment to growth.
Furthermore, construction of CIPs under the 2015 WFMP Update may generate new jobs throughout the
planning area, but this additional economic activity would be incremental compared to the economic
growth of the greater San Diego region. Therefore, implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would not
be growth-inducing because it would not foster substantial economic expansion or growth in the region.
6.4 Significant and Unavoidable
Environmental Impacts
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the identification of significant impacts that would
not be avoided, even with the implementation of PDFs, SCPs, and feasible mitigation/performance
measures. The final determination of significance of impacts and of the feasibility of mitigation/
performance measures will be made by the OWD Board of Directors as part of their certification of this
PEIR. Sections 4.1 through 4.12 of this PEIR provide a programmatic evaluation of the potentially
significant environmental effects and corresponding mitigation/performance measures associated with
implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update. According to this evaluation, all potential environmental
effects would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of identified PDFs, SCPs and
feasible mitigation/performance measures, and no significant unavoidable environmental impacts would
remain.
6.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental
Effects
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible
environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project, as follows:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project
may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or
nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as
highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally
commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from
environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the:
■ primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
■ project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;
■ project involves uses in which irreversible damage would result from any potential environmental
accidents associated with the project; or
■ proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of
energy).
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 6-7
November 2016
Development of potable and recycled water infrastructure under the 2015 WFMP Update would allow
the OWD to continue to supply water to its current and future users within the planning area. Resources
that would be permanently and continually consumed by implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update
include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. However, the amount and rate of consumption of
these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or
wasteful use of resources as discussed in Section 4.4 (Energy) of this PEIR. Nonetheless, construction and
operations associated with implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update would result in the irretrievable
commitment of nonrenewable energy resources. It is also possible that new technologies or systems
would emerge, or would become more cost-effective or user-friendly, upon which OWD may rely to
further reduce their reliance on nonrenewable energy resources. Overall, the consumption of natural
resources associated with implementation of the 2015 WFMP Update is expected to increase at a lesser
rate than the projected population increase within the planning area due to the variety of energy
conservation measures that the OWD will continue to implement, expand and develop in their continual
quest to achieve energy efficiency for their construction and operational activities (refer to Section 4.4,
Energy, of this PEIR).
The CEQA Guidelines also require a discussion of the potential for irreversible environmental damage
caused by an accident. As discussed in Section 4.11 (Public Safety) of this PEIR, the OWD uses, transports,
stores, and disposes of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable federal, state and local
regulations, as well as with existing OWD programs, practices, and procedures related to hazardous
materials, to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents that would result in irreversible
environmental damage. Therefore, implementation of Haz-PDF-1 would reduce hazards to the public or
the environment through the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during CIP
operations, and associated accidental releases of hazardous materials into the environment and near
schools, to a less than significant level.
6.6 References
Atkins. 2016. Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update. Chapter 3 Water Demand.
City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department (Chula Vista). 2015. City of Chula Vista 2015
Annual Residential Growth Forecast Years 2015 through 2020. December 2007. Accessed from
www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Development_Services/Planning_Building/Boards_Commis
sions/documents/Prelim_Forecast.pdf
County of San Diego (County). 2011. Forest Conservation Initiative Lands General Plan Amendment No
Project Alternative Land Use Map, August 3, 2011.
County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use (County). 2008. Guidelines For Determining
Significance, Mineral Resources. Land Use and Environment Group. July 30, 2008.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2012. San Diego County Important Farmland 2012,
Sheet 1 of 2. Published: June 2015.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2011. 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, Technical
Appendix 2.
Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 6-8
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 7 Project Alternatives
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 7-1
November 2016
Chapter 7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires an EIR to describe and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to a proposed project,
or alternatives to the location of a proposed project. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to explore
ways that most of the basic objectives of a proposed project could be attained while reducing or avoiding
significant environmental impacts of the project as proposed. This approach is intended to foster
informed decision-making and public participation in the environmental process.
This chapter evaluates alternatives to the 2015 WFMP Update and examines the potential environmental
impacts associated with each alternative. CEQA Guidelines indicate that EIRs are required to evaluate a
“…range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly
attain the basic objectives of the project” (Section 15126.6[a] CEQA Guidelines). According to the
Guidelines, not every conceivable alternative must be addressed, nor do infeasible alternatives need be
considered. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines lists the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives: site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure,
other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries. The Guidelines also state that the
discussion of alternatives should focus on “…alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially lessening
any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives could impede to some degree the
attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly” (Section 15166.6[b] CEQA Guidelines).
CEQA further directs that “…the significant effects of the alternatives shall be discussed, but in less detail
than the significant effects of the project as proposed” (Section 15126.6[d] CEQA Guidelines).
Based on the CEQA Guidelines, the following alternatives to avoid or reduce significant project impacts
were identified and are discussed in Section 7.2 below: No Project Alternative and Reduced Footprint
Alternative.
7.1 Project Objectives
As stated in Section 3.4.2 (Goals and Objectives, Project Description) of this PEIR, the goals and objectives
of the 2015 WFMP Update include the following actions:
■ Update Planning Criteria and the District’s Hydraulic System Models: Review and update, as
necessary, the District’s system performance criteria, and update the District’s InfoWater system
hydraulic models to account for new development and to maintain integration with the District’s
GIS system.
■ Map Out Water and Recycled Water Facility Improvements: Identify and prioritize the District’s
facility needs, including transmission, storage, and pumping facilities, to serve projected future
conditions.
Chapter 7 Project Alternatives
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 7-2
November 2016
■ Update OWD CIP: Update the District’s near-term (2020) and long-term (2050) CIP, based on a
new demand forecast, new supply options and identified facility needs.
■ Identify Adaptive Responses to Changed Conditions: Identify how needed facility improvements
and CIP items would change should future demand and supply conditions vary from baseline
assumptions.
7.2 Alternatives Analyzed
This section presents an evaluation of two alternatives to the proposed 2015 WFMP Update: No Project
Alternative and Reduced Footprint Alternative. For both alternatives, a brief description is included,
followed by a summary impact analysis relative to the 2015 WFMP Update, and an assessment of the
degree to which the alternative would meet the goals and objectives of the 2015 WFMP Update.
No Project Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the No Project Alternative to be addressed in an EIR.
Under this alternative, the OWD Board of Directors would not adopt the 2015 WFMP Update.
Impact Analysis
The No Project Alternative would not necessarily prevent the implementation of the CIP projects listed in
the 2015 WFMP Update. Without the 2015 WFMP Update, these projects could still be constructed on
an individual basis. The potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the CIP
projects identified in this PEIR would still occur. Under the No Project Alternative, impacts associated
with individual CIP projects might not be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of
the various PDFs, SCPs, and mitigation/performance measures identified in this PEIR.
Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the four objectives identified for the 2015 WFMP
Update. Under this alternative, OWD would not be able map out the District’s facilities needs and would
not be able to identify adaptive responses to changed conditions. This would hinder OWD’s ability to meet
the future water demands of the planning area. In addition, this alternative would deny OWD the
opportunity to streamline the environmental review of future projects with this PEIR and subsequent
tiered CEQA documents.
Reduced Footprint Alternative
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would reduce the size and capacity of several CIP projects located
within sensitive biological resources. Refer to Tables 4.2-6, 4.2-7, and 4.2-8 in Section 4.2.3.1 (Biological
Resources, Issue 1) for CIPs that are proposed to occur within areas containing these sensitive resources.
Impact Analysis
The Reduced Footprint Alternative may result in incrementally reduced impacts to biological resources,
in comparison to the proposed CIP projects. However, biological impacts in undeveloped areas could still
occur due to the presence of development and construction activities, and may not directly correlate to
the development footprint. For example, decreasing the capacity of a CIP water storage project by a
Chapter 7 Project Alternatives
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 7-3
November 2016
certain percentage would still result in clearing, grading, and other initial land disturbances. Temporary
impacts to air quality may incrementally decrease with this alternative, as it may take less time to
construct smaller projects. Impacts to cultural resources may also be lessened due to the reduced
development footprints of CIP projects. In general, the Reduced Footprint Alternative may result in less
environmental impacts in comparison to the proposed CIP projects, but probably not to a substantial
degree.
Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives
The Reduced Footprint Alterative would fully meet three out of four objectives identified for the 2015
WFMP Update, in addition to reducing potential impacts to air quality and biological and cultural
resources. This alternative would not meet the following objective of the 2015 WFMP Update because
the reduced sizes of some of the proposed and planned CIP facilities may not fully satisfy the water
demands of the entire planning area and identified area of influence: Update the District’s Capital
Improvement Program and Identify Adaptive Responses to Changed Conditions. OWD is required to fulfill
state, regional, and local polices which mandate the development of alternative water sources. The CIP
projects listed in the 2015 WFMP Update are designed to meet the water demands of the planning area
and identified area of influence based upon development patterns, types, location and timing. With the
reduced CIP projects, additional facilities (pump stations, reservoirs and groundwater wells) may be
needed in other locations to meet the water supply demands. This could result in increased impacts to
air quality, cultural resources, energy consumption, landform alteration, water quality, and noise.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior
alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. The No Project
Alternative would avoid all potentially significant environmental impacts identified for the 2015 WFMP
Update. However, this alternative would not preclude implementation of some, if not all, of the CIP
projects on an individual basis. In addition, this alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the
2015 WFMP Update.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) also requires that an EIR identify another alternative as
environmentally superior, besides the No Project Alternative. In this case, the next environmentally
superior alternative would be the Reduced Footprint Alternative, which would reduce, but not eliminate,
potential impacts to air quality, biological, and cultural resources. However, this alternative would not
achieve all four of the stated objectives (Section 3.4.2 Project Description, and Section 6.1 Project
Objectives) of the 2015 WFMP Update.
Chapter 7 Project Alternatives
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 7-4
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 8 Acronyms and Abbreviations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 8-1
November 2016
Chapter 8 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB 32 Assembly Bill
AFY acre feet per year
AMSL above mean sea level
AOI Area of Influence
AP Alquist-Priolo
APCD Air Pollution Control District
AQIA Air Quality Impact Analysis
ARB California Air Resources Board
ARP Accidental Release Prevention Program
ASTs above-ground storage tanks
BMPs Best Management Practices
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAS Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology
CDTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
CIP Capital Improvement Program or Project(s)
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
Chapter 8 Acronyms and Abbreviations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 8-2
November 2016
CO2e CO2 equivalent
CPA Community Planning Area
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
dBA A-weighting decibels
DEH County Department of Environmental Health
DNL/Ldn 24-hour period
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPM Diesel particulate matter
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERP Emergency Response Plan
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FIRMs Federal Insurance Rate Maps
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Focus 2050 San Diego Foundation’s Regional Focus 2050 Working Paper and Technical Assessment
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GDP General Development Plan
GHGs greenhouse gases
GSAs groundwater sustainability agencies
HazMat Hazardous Materials
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCPs habitat conservation plans
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HIRT Health Hazardous Incident Response Team
HLP Habitat Loss Permit
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Hz Hertz
I- Interstate
in/sec inches per second
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP Integrated Resources Plan
ITP incidental take permit
ITS incidental take statement
LAFCO San Diego Local Area Formation Commission
Leq Equivalent Energy Level
LOPS Lower Otay Pump Station
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels
mg/L milligrams per liter
Chapter 8 Acronyms and Abbreviations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 8-3
November 2016
ML Managed Lanes
MMT million metric tons
MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MSCPs Multiple Species Conservation Programs
MT metric ton
MW megawatts
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NIMS National Incident Management System
NO nitrogen oxide
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NSLU Noise-sensitive land uses
NWR San Diego National Wildlife Refuge
O3 Ozone
OES Office of Emergency Services
OMCPA Otay Mesa Community Planning Area
OPR California Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OVRP Otay Valley Regional Park
OWD Otay Water District
OWTP Otay Water Treatment Plant
pb Lead
PDF project design features
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM10 and PM2.5 Particulate matter
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REL reference exposure level
RfDs reference doses
RGF Regional Growth Forecast
RMPP Risk Management and Prevention Program
RMS root mean square
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Chapter 8 Acronyms and Abbreviations
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 8-4
November 2016
SAMPs Sub Area Master Plans
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCP standard construction practices
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategies
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDBP San Diego Basin Plan
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SPAs Specific/Sectional Plan Areas
SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
SR State Route
SSC Species of Special Concern
STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs Toxic air contaminants
TDS total dissolved solids
TMDL total maximum daily load
TRB Transportation Research Board
U.S. United States
UBC Uniform Building Code
UDC Unified Disaster Council
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC U.S. States Code
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WAS Water Agencies Standards
WFMP Water Facilities Master Plan
WPO Watershed Protection, Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance
WRMP Water Resources Master Plan
Chapter 9 Preparers
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 9-1
November 2016
Chapter 9 PREPARERS
The following professional staff participated in the preparation of this PEIR.
Otay Water District
Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist
Atkins
Robert (Jud) Warren Project Director
Chris Moore Project Manager
Chryss Meier Deputy Project Manager; Air Quality/Global Climate Change; Energy; Noise
Claudia Watts General EIR Preparation
Elizabeth Brown General EIR Preparation
Mariela Mendoza General EIR Preparation
Thomas Strand General EIR Preparation
Travis Whitney General EIR Preparation
Melissa Tu Biological Resources
Sandra Pentney Cultural Resources
Marc Cavallaro GIS
Brandon Belajac GIS
Chapter 9 Preparers
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 9-2
November 2016
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 10 Distribution
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 10-1
November 2016
Chapter 10 DISTRIBUTION
California Air Resources Board
California Department of Conservation
California Department of Fish & Wildlife
California Department of Health Services
California Department of Parks & Recreation
California Department of Public Health
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Department Water Resources
California Office of Historic Preservation
California Resources Agency
Caltrans, District 11
City of Chula Vista
City of San Diego Water Department
City of San Diego Planning Department
Community Planning Group
County of San Diego, Department of Public Works
County of San Diego, Planning & Development Services
Crest-Dehesa-Granite Hills-Harbison Canyon
East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
George F. Bailey Detention Facility
Governor's Office of Planning & Research
Hawano Corp NV
Helix Water District
Jamul Indian Village
Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Group
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Chapter 10 Distribution
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page 10-2
November 2016
Native American Heritage Commission
Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce
Otay Mesa Crossing LLC
Otay Mesa Planning Committee
Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region
San Diego County Archeological Society, Inc.
San Diego Association of Governments
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
San Diego County Water Authority
San Diego Gas and Electric
South County Economic Development Council
State Lands Commission
State Water Resources Control Board
Sweetwater Authority
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
US Army Corps of Engineers, San Diego Field Office
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Valle de Oro Community Planning Group
Chula Vista Public Library, Civic Center Branch
Chula Vista Public Library, Otay Ranch Branch
Chula Vista Public Library, South Chula Vista Branch
San Diego Public Library, Central
San Diego Public Library, Otay Mesa-Nestor Branch
San Diego Public Library, San Ysidro Branch
San Diego County Public Library, Crest Branch
San Diego County Public Library, La Mesa Branch Library
San Diego County Public Library, Rancho San Diego Branch
APPENDIX A
Notice of Preparation and Responses
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD, SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
TELEPHONE: 670-222, AREA CODE 619 www.otaywater.gov
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING NOTICE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2015 WATER FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
DATE: June 29, 2015
TO: Responsible, Trustee, and Other Agencies and Interested
Organizations/Individuals
LEAD AGENCY: Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines
(CCR Title 14, §§15082(a), 15103, and 15375), this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is hereby sent to
inform you that the Otay Water District (OWD) is preparing a draft Program Environmental
Impact Report (PEIR) to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the
2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update (Master Plan). A PEIR is being prepared pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15168 because the Master Plan will describe a long-term Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) through the Year 2050. The Master Plan is intended to complement existing,
approved land use development plans and growth projections within the OWD service area and
adjacent areas of influence, consistent with the San Diego Association of Governments forecasts.
The CIP will involve new construction and expansion of potable and recycled water conveyance
and storage facilities, including pipelines, pump stations and reservoirs. The PEIR will provide the
basis for subsequent environmental review of future CIP projects.
As Lead Agency under CEQA, we need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and
content of the environmental information that is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities
in connection with implementation of the Master Plan. Your agency may need to use the PEIR
prepared by the OWD when considering your permit or other approvals. The OWD requests that
any potential responsible or trustee agency respond to this NOP in a manner consistent with State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(b). If you are responding as an interested organization or
individual citizen, we need to know your views as to the environmental information you would
like us to address in the draft PEIR.
Attachment 1 provides an overview of the Master Plan and its objectives. A map of the Master
Plan planning area and adjacent areas of influence is provided in Attachment 2.
Public Scoping Meeting: A public scoping meeting will be held to provide more information on
the Master Plan, and to give the public an opportunity to offer comments and suggestions on the
scope of the draft PEIR. The public scoping meeting will provide the OWD with an opportunity
to learn about potential concerns, mitigation measures and alternatives that may warrant in-depth
analysis during the environmental review process. The date, time, and address of this meeting are
provided below:
Date: July 14, 2015
Time: 5:00 – 7:00 PM
Place: Otay Water District
Training Room
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096
Please note that, depending on the number of attendees, the meeting could end earlier than the end
times noted above.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible
date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this NOP. Please send your written responses,
including the name of a contact person and phone number, to:
Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
Phone: 619-670-2219
Fax: 619-670-8920
Email: lisa.coburn-boyd@otaywater.gov
Any written or oral comments received at the public scoping meeting will be considered in
preparing the draft PEIR, along with any written comments received during the 30-day NOP public
comment period. All parties that have submitted their names and mailing addresses will be notified
of subsequent actions as part of the environmental review process. If you wish to be placed on the
mailing list or have any questions about the Master Plan, please contact Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd at
the phone number above.
Signature:
Name: Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Title: Environmental Compliance Specialist
Date: June 29, 2015
Attachments: 1. Overview of Master Plan
2. Map of Master Plan Planning Area and Adjacent Areas of Influence
ATTACHMENT 1
OVERVIEW
The purpose of the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan is to revise and update the OWD’s 2008
Water Resource Master Plan (WRMP). The 2015 Master Plan will identify proposed potable and
recycled water CIP facilities (e.g., pump stations, storage reservoirs, transmission mains), and
associated probable cost estimates, to meet projected water market demands within the OWD
planning area and the identified area of influence (Attachment 2). The Master Plan will develop a
phased approach to outline the CIP projects necessary to meet projected customer demands during
the following time frames: 2020 (Near Term) and 2050 (Long-Term).
In addition, the process to finalize the Master Plan requires addressing environmental impacts for
each recommended CIP project. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, OWD must prepare a PEIR
to obtain approval and formal adoption of the Master Plan. The PEIR will provide an overview of
the CIP projects identified in the Master Plan, and their impacts in terms of aesthetics/landform
alteration, air quality/climate change, biological resources, cultural resources, cumulative effects,
energy, geology/soils/paleontology, growth inducement, hydrology/water quality, land
use/planning, noise, public safety, and traffic/circulation. The previous PEIR for the 2008 WRMP
was adopted and certified in 2010.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES:
The Master Plan will identify a comprehensive system-wide plan for both the potable and recycled
water system within the OWD planning area and the identified area of influence. The OWD’s
primary objectives for the Master Plan include the following actions:
1. Update Planning Criteria and the District’s Hydraulic System Models: Review and
update as needed the District’s system performance criteria, and update the District’s
InfoWater system hydraulic models to account for new development and to maintain
integration with the District’s GIS system.
2. Map Out Water and Recycled Water Facility Improvements: Map out the District’s
facility needs, including transmission, storage, and pumping, to serve projected future
conditions.
3. Update the District’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Update the District’s near-
term (2020) and long-term (2050) CIP, based on a new demand forecast, new supply
options and identified facility needs.
4. Identify Adaptive Responses to Changed Conditions: Identify how needed facility
improvements and CIP items would change should future demand and supply conditions
vary from baseline assumptions.
ATTACHMENT 2
East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
July 29, 2015
Mr. Mark Watton, General Manager and
Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd, PEIR Manager
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2004
Request for Response to Environment Impact Comments RE: Otay Water District Program
Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update
Dear Mr. Watton and Ms. Cobern-Boyd:
On behalf of the East Otay Mesa and Otay Mesa Property Owners Associations (EOMPOA and
OMPOA), and pursuant to your June 29, 2015 public notice, we are submitting this letter in
response to your request for comments from affected individual stakeholders regarding the
potential environmental impacts that should be addressed in the draft Program Environmental
Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan Update (the Master Plan).
According to Otay Water District’s (OWD) public notice, the Master Plan involves new
construction and expansion of portable and recycled water conveyance and storage facilities,
including pipelines, pump stations and reservoirs. The Master Plan will identify a
comprehensive system-wide plan for both the potable and recycled water systems within OWD
and its identified area of influence. It will also update OWD's near term (2020) and long term
(2050) capital improvement program based on new demand forecasts, new supply options and
identified facility needs.
We ask that the scope of the PEIR address the following comments we have about the process
by which the scope of the PEIR is being set and about the potential environmental impacts the
Master Plan may have:
1050 Rosecrans Street, Suite B, San Diego, CA 92106 619.222.8155
OWD PEIR Letter
Page 2
(1) There is no description of the 2015 CIP Master Plan available for review that puts affected
stakeholders in a position of recommending a PEIR scope when we don’t know the scope or
cost of the Master Plan. The proposed plan is not available for review on OWD’s website nor
did OWD staff provide data on its parameters (general scope areas) in the scope setting
meeting on July 14, 2015 at the OWD Training Room. The PEIR should address how OWD plans
to remedy this lack of general scope and cost disclosure before setting the scope of the PEIR
and producing the draft EIR.
(2) The PEIR should address the impact the Master Plan would have on the supply of both
potable and recycled water to the Otay Mesa (City) and East Otay Mesa (County) service areas.
(3) The PEIR should address the impact the Master Plan would have on current and future
recycled and potable water rates based on the short and long term CIPs.
(4) The PEIR should address the impact the Master Plan would have on OWD’s current and
future geographic service area for the provision of potable and recycled water service.
(5) The PEIR should address how the Master Plan and water rates will be amended if key
assumptions - such as population growth, construction cost overruns and the pace of program
execution do not occur as projected in the Master Plan – so that unneeded scope and higher
costs are not passed through to ratepayers in the form of higher than necessary water rates;
and water rates are reduced if program execution does not occur as anticipated in the Master
Plan.
(6) The PEIR should address how OWD plans to provide on-going disclosure of program
execution, costs and finances to affected individual stakeholders through the plan timeframe.
Thank you for responding to these issues and environmental impacts in a written reply to our
members regarding our concerns regarding OWD’s initial PEIR process and the issues outlined
in this letter and how they will be addressed in the draft EIR.
David Wick, Chairman Rob Hixson, Chairman
East Otay Mesa Property Owners Association Otay Mesa Property Owners Association
dwick@natent.com Rob.Hixson@cbre.com
CALII011NIA
Water Boards
State Water Resources Control Board
JUL 1 7 2Qta
Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley, CA 91978-2096
Dear Ms. Coburn-Boyd:
~~~~i `' ~ ~ii~~
~, _ - f
2~1~~""27 P.~111~2~
C _= ~ EDMUND G. BROWN JP.
~~ GOVERNOR
MATTHEW RODRI~UEZ
SECRETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) FOR OTAY WATER DISTRICT (DISTRICT); 2015 WATER
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE (PROJECT); SAN DIEGO COUNTY; STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2015061091
We understand that the District may be pursuing Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
financing for this Project. As a funding agency and a state agency with jurisdiction by law to preserve,
enhance, and restore the quality of California's water resources, the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board) is providing the following information on the preparation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Project.
The State Water Board, Division of Financial Assistance, is responsible for administering the CWSRF
Program. The primary purpose for the CWSRF Program is to implement the Clean Water Act and
various state laws by providing financial assistance for wastewater treatment facilities necessary to
prevent water pollution, recycle water, correct nonpoint source and storm drainage pollution problems,
provide for estuary enhancement, and thereby protect and promote health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the state. The CWSRF Program provides low-interest funding equal to one-half of the
most recent State General Obligation Bond Rates with a 30-year term. Applications are accepted and
processed continuously. Please refer to the State Water Board's CWSRF website at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srf/index.shtml.
The CWSRF Program is partially funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and
requires additional "CEQA-Plus" environmental documentation and review. Three enclosures are
included that further explain the CWSRF Program environmental review process and the additional
federal requirements. For the complete environmental application package, please visit:
httn://www.waterboards.ca.aov/water issues/aroarams/arants loans/srF/srf forms.shtml. The State
Water Board is required to consult directly with agencies responsible for implementing federal
environmental laws and regulations. Any environmental issues raised by federal agencies or their
representatives will need to be resolved prior to State Water Board approval of a CWSRF financing
commitment for the proposed Project. For further information on the CWSRF Program, please contact
Mr. Ahmad Kashkoli, at (916) 341-5855.
It is important to note that prior to a CWSRF financing commitment, projects are subject to provisions of
the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and must obtain Section 7 clearance from the United
States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or the United States
Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) for any potential effects to special-status species.
F[LIC IA MARCUS, CHAIR THOMAS HOWARD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 ~ Mailing Adtlress: P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, Ca 95812-0100 ~ www.waterboards.ca.gov
`tea RECYCLED PAPER
2
Please be advised that the State Water Board will consult with the USFWS, and/or the NMFS regarding
all federal special-status species that the Project has the potential to impact if the Project is to be
financed by the CWSRF Program. The District will need to identify whether the Project will involve any
direct effects from construction activities, or indirect effects such as growth inducement, that may affect
federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species that are known, or have a potential to
occur in the Project site, in the surrounding areas, or in the service area, and to identify applicable
conservation measures to reduce such effects.
In addition, CWSRF projects must comply with federal laws pertaining to cultural resources, specifically
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106). The State Water Board has
responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 106 and the State Water Board must consult directly
with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). SHPO consultation is initiated when
sufficient information is provided by the CWSRF applicant. The District must retain a consultant that
meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards
(http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch stnds 9.htm) to prepare a Section 106 compliance report.
Note that the District will need to identify the Area of Potential Effects (APE), including construction and
staging areas, and the depth of any excavation. The APE is three-dimensional and includes all areas
that may be affected by the Project. The APE includes the surface area and extends below ground to
the depth of any Project excavations. The records search request should extend to a'/z-mile beyond
Project APE. The appropriate area varies for different projects but should be drawn large enough to
provide information on what types of sites may exist in the vicinity.
Other federal environmental requirements pertinent to the Project under the CWSRF Program include
the following (for a complete list of all environmental requirements, please visit:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srf/docs/forms/application environ
mental package.pdfi~:
A. Compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act: (a) Provide air quality studies that may have been
done for the Project; and (b) if the Project is in a nonattainment area or attainment area subject
to a maintenance plan; (i) provide a summary of the estimated emissions (in tons per year) that
are expected from both the construction and operation of the Project for each federal criteria
pollutant in a nonattainment or maintenance area, and indicate if the nonattainment designation
is moderate, serious, or severe (if applicable); (ii) if emissions are above the federal de minimis
levels, but the Project is sized to meet only the needs of current population projections that are
used in the approved State Implementation Plan for air quality, quantitatively indicate how the
proposed capacity increase was calculated using population projections.
B. Compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act: Identify whether the Project is within a
coastal zone and the status of any coordination with the California Coastal Commission.
C. Protection of Wetlands: Identify any portion of the proposed Project area that should be
evaluated for wetlands or United States waters delineation by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE), or requires a permit from the USAGE, and identify the status of
coordination with the USAGE.
D. Compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act: Identify whether the Project will result in
the conversion of farmland. State the status of farmland (Prime, Unique, or Local and Statewide
Importance) in the Project area and determine if this area is under a Williamson Act Contract.
E. Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act: List any birds protected under this act that may
be impacted by the Project and identify conservation measures to minimize impacts.
3
F. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Act: Identify whether or not the Project is in a
Flood Management Zone and include a copy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
flood zone maps for the area.
G. Compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: Identify whether or not any Wild and Scenic
Rivers would be potentially impacted by the Project and include conservation measures to
minimize such impacts.
Following the preparation of the draft CEQA document for the Project, please provide us a copy of the
document to review if the District is considering CWSRF financing. In addition, we would appreciate
notices of any hearings or meetings held regarding environmental review for the Project.
Thank you for the providing us a copy of your NOP, and the consideration of the CWSRF for the
financing of the District's Project. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact
me at (916) 341-5855, or by email at Ahmad.KashkoliCa~waterboards.ca.gov, or contact Elysar Naja at
(916) 327-9117, or by email at Elysar.Naia(a~waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
1
z
f Ahmad Kashkoli
`senior Environmental Scientist
cc: State Clearinghouse
(Re: SCH# 2015061091)
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
For Section 106 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
under the National Historic Preservation Act
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT
The Cultural Resources Report must be prepared by a
qualified researcher that meets the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards. Please see the
Professional Qualifications Standards at the following website
at: http://www.~rnps.gov/loyal-law/arch stnds 9.htm
The Cultural Resources Report should include one of the
four "findings"listed in Section 106. These include:
"No historic properties affected"
(no properties are within the area of potential
effect (APE; including below the ground).
"No effect to historic properties"
(properties may be near the APE, but the
project will not have any adverse effects).
"No ad verse efifett to historic properties"
(the project may affect "historic properties';
but the effects will not be adverse).
"Ad verse effetr to historic properties"
Note: Consultation with the SHPO will be required if a
"no adverse effect to historic properties"or an "adverse
effectto historic properties"determination is made,
to develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications
to the proposed project that could avoid, minimize or
mitigate adverse effects on "historic properties"
RECORDS SEARCH
• A records search (less than one year old) extending to a half-
milebeyond the project APE from a geographically appropriate
Information Center is required. The records search should
include maps that show all recorded sites and surveys in
relation to the APE for the proposed project, and copies ofthe
confidential site records included as an appendix to the Cultural
Resources Report.
• The APE isthree-dimensional (depth, length and width) and
all areas (e.g., new construction, easements, staging areas, and
access roads) directly affected by the proposed project.
;r~~~
~,~ ~_.:
~~,
We've got the green...
to keep California`s crater clean.
CLEAN y/ATEP STATE REVOLVING FUND
NATIVE AMERICAN
and INTERESTED PARTY CONSULTATION PRECAUTIONS
• Native American and interested party consultation should
be initiated at the planning phase of the proposed project
to gather information to assist with the preparation of an
adequate Cultural Resources Report.
• The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be
contacted to obtain documentation of a search of the Sacred
Lands Files for or near the project APE.
• All local Native American tribal organizations or individuals
identified by the NAHC must be contacted by certified mail,
and the letter should include a map and a description of the
proposed project.
• Follow-up contact should be made by telephone and a phone
log maintained to document the contacts and responses.
• Letters of inquiry seeking historical information on the
project area and local vicinity should be sent to local historica
societies, preservation organizations, or individual members
of the public with a demonstrated interest in the proposed
project.
Copies of all documents mentioned above (project
description, map, phone log and letters sent to the
NAHC and Native American tribal organizations
or individuals and interested parties) must be
included in the Cultural Resources Report.
Confattlnformaiion: For more information related to the CWSRF Program
Cultural Resources and Requirments, please contact Mr. Ahmad Kashkoli at
916-341-5855 or Ahmad.Kashkoli@waterboards.ca.gov
A finding of "no known resources"without supporting
evidence is unacceptable. The Cultural Resources Report
must identify resources within the APE or demonstrate
with sufficient evidence that none are present.
"The area is sensitive for buried archaeological
resour~es;'followed by a statement that "monitoring is
recommended." Monitoring is not an acceptable option
without good-faith effort to demonstrate that no known
resource is present.
If "the area is already disturbed by previous
con~tru~rion"documentation is still required to demonstrate
that the proposed project will not affect"historic properties"
An existing road can be protecting a buried archaeological
deposit or may itself be a "historic property."Additionally,
previous construction may have impacted an archaeological
site that has not been previously documented.
SHPO CONSULTATION LETTER
Submit a draft consultation letter prepared by the qualified
researcher with the Cultural Resources Report to the State Water
Resources Control Board. A draft consultation letter template is
available for download on the State Water Board webpage at:
http://www.waterboards.~a.gov/water issues/programs/
grants loans/~wsrf requirements.shtml
Water Boards
STATE wATEi~RESOUaCES CONTROL BOARDREUIONAL WPTfR OVa~ITY CONTPOL BORRDS
waterboards.ca.gov
The State Water Resources Control Board
(State Water Board), Division of Financia
Assistance, administers the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
Program. The CWSRF Program is partially
funded by grants from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. All
applicants seeking CWSRF financing
must comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
provide sufficient information so that
the State Water Board can document
compliance with federal environmental
Iaws.The"Environmental Package"
provides the forms and instructions
needed to complete the environmental
review requirements for CWSRF Program
financing. It is available at:
http://www. waterboards.ca.gov/
water issues/programs/grants_
loans/srf/srf forms.shtml
We've got the green...
to keep California's water clean.
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
LEAD AGENCY
The applicant is usually the "Lead Agency"and
must prepare and circulate an environmental
document before approving a project. Only
a public agency, such as a local, regional or
state government, may be the"Lead Agency"
under CEQA. If a project will be completed by a
non-governmental organization,"dead Agency"
responsibility goes to the first public agency
providing discretionary approval for the project.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
The State Water Board is generally a
"Responsible Agency" under CEQA. As a
"Responsible Agency;'the StateWaterBoard
must make findings based on information
provided by the"Lead Agency"before financing
a project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The State Water Board's environmental review
of the project's compliance with both CEQA
and federal cross-cutting regulations must be
completed before a project can be financed by
the CWSRF Program.
DOCUMENT REVIEW
Applicants are encouraged to consult with
StateWaterBoard staff early during preparation
of CEQA document if considering CWSRF
financing. Applicants shall also send their
environmental documents to the StateWater
Board, Environmental Review Unit during
the CEQA public review period. This way, any
environmental concerns can be addressed early
in the process.
Contactlnformation: For more information related to the CWSRF Program environmental
review process and requirements, please contact your State Water Board Project Manager
or Mr. Ahmad Kashkoli at 916-341-5855 or Ahmad.Kashkoli@waterboards.ca.gov
REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
The Environmental Review Unit requires the
documents listed below to make findings and
complete its environmental review. Once the
State Water Board receives ail the required
documents and makes its own findings, the
environmental review for the project will be
complete.
3 Draft and Final Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact Report, Negative
Declaration, and Mitigated Negative Decla-
ration asappropriate tothe project
3 Resolution adopting/certifying the environ-
mentaldocument, making CEQA findings,
and approving the project
3 All comments received during the public
review period and the"Lead Agency's'
responses to those comments
✓Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, if applicable
3 Date-stamped copy of the Notice of
Determination or Notice of Exemption filed
with the County Clerks) and the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research
3 CWSRF Evaluation Form for Environmental
Review and Federal Coordination with
supporting documents
i
~,, Water Beards t
~~ - titti f C 'i~}f F ~NIfuH l iD
~- °'waterboards.ca.gov
APPENDIX B
Special Status Species Reported or Potentially
Occurring within the Planning Area
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-1
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
San Diego thorn-mint
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
FESA: Threatened
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 1B.1
Clay soils, openings in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, and vernal pools
Elevation 33 – 3,150 feet
Annual herb, blooms April–June
Heavy clay with crumbly or deeply fissured soil, which
noticeably compresses when treaded upon even during
the dry season.
Known to Occur
California adolphia
Adolphia californica
CNPS: 2.1
Clay soils, chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland
Elevation 148 – 2,428 feet
Perennial deciduous shrub, blooms December–May
Peripheral chaparral habitat with Diegan sage scrub,
particularly near hillsides and next to creeks. California
adolphia is associated with California buckwheat and
California sagebrush.
Known to Occur
San Diego bur-sage
Ambrosia chenopodifolia CNPS: 2.1
Coastal scrub
Elevation 180 – 508 feet
Perennial shrub, blooms April–June
Found in Diegan sage scrub that usually contains
California sagebrush and black sage (Salvia mellifera). It
has been mapped in Olivenhain cobbly loam.
Known to Occur
singlewhorl burrobrush
Ambrosia monogyra CNPS: 2.2
Sandy soils.
Elevation 33-1,640 feet
Perennial shrub, blooms August–November
Undocumented Known to Occur
San Diego ambrosia
Ambrosia pumila
FESA: Endangered
CNPS: 1B.1
Sandy loam or clay, often in disturbed areas, sometimes
alkaline chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools
Elevation 66 – 1,362 feet
Perennial rhizomatous herb, blooms April–October
Creek beds, seasonally dry drainages, floodplains, on the
periphery of willow woodland. Soils include sandy
alluvium.
Known to Occur
Otay manzanita
Arctostaphylos otayensis CNPS:1B.2
Metavolcanic, chaparral, cismontane woodland
Elevation 902 – 5,577 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms January–April
Metavolcanic peaks with soils mapped as San Miguel-
Exchequer rocky silt loam. Soils are quite shallow with
much exposed rock flake.
Known to Occur
San Diego sagewort
Artemisia palmeri CNPS: 4.2
Sandy, mesic soils, chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian
forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland
Elevation 49 – 3,002 feet
Perennial deciduous shrub, blooms February–September
Commonly found along creeks and drainages near the
coast. Found in rocky, sandy loams. Grows commonly in
shaded understory beneath willow, sycamore and
cottonwood.
Known to Occur
Dean’s milk-vetch
Astragalus deanei CNPS: 1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian
forest
Elevation 246 – 2,280 feet
Perennial herb, blooms February–May
Sandy washes. Found in Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy
loam, which is the soil type for the Tecate population.
Moderate
Potential
South Coast salt scale
Atriplex pacifica CNPS:1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and
playas
Elevation 0 – 459 feet
Annual herb, blooms March–October
Xeric, often mildly disturbed locales. Soils are mapped as
Linne clay loam and found with California sagebrush. Known to Occur
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-2
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
San Diego sunflower
Bahiopsis laciniata CNPS: 4.2
Chaparral and coastal scrub
Elevation 197 – 2,460 feet. Perennial shrub, blooms
February-August
Arid, open canopy coastal sage scrub. Known to Occur
golden-spined cereus
Bergerocactus emoryi CNPS: 2.2
Sandy, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and
coastal scrub
Elevation 10 – 1,296 feet
Perennial stem succulent, blooms May–June
Found in maritime succulent scrub with cliff spurge
(Euphorbia misera) and Shaw’s agave.
Moderate
Potential
San Diego goldenstar
Bloomeria clevelandii CNPS: 1B.1
Clay, chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, and vernal pools
Elevation 164 – 1,526 feet
Perennial bulbiferous herb, blooms April–May
Undocumented Known to Occur
Orcutt’s brodiaea
Brodiaea orcuttii CNPS: 1B.1
Mesic, clay, sometimes serpentinite, closed-cone
coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland,
meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools
Elevation 98 – 5,551 feet
Perennial bulbiferous herb, blooms April–May
Mima mound topography, vernally moist grasslands,
periphery of vernal pools. Soils consist of stockpen
gravelly loam and Redding gravelly loam.
Known to Occur
round-leaved filaree
California macrophylla CNPS: 1B.1
Clay, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill
grassland
Elevation 49 – 3,937 feet
Annual herb, blooms March–May
Undocumented Known to Occur
Dunn’s mariposa-lily
Calochortus dunnii
CESA: Rare
CNPS: 1B.2
Gabbroic, metavolcanic, rocky, closed-cone coniferous
forest, chaparral, and valley and foothill grassland
Elevation 607 – 6,004 feet
Perennial bulbiferous herb, blooms February–June
Rocky openings in chaparral, restricted to metavolcanic
and gabbroic derived soils.
Known to Occur
Lakeside ceanothus
Ceanothus cyaneus CNPS: 1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest, and chaparral
Elevation 771 – 2,477 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms April–June.
Specifically known in the Lakeside foothills, found in
dense almost impenetrable chaparral with a mix of
chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum). Soils consist of acid
igneous rock and Cieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam.
Low Potential
Otay Mountain ceanothus
Ceanothus otayensis CNPS:1B.2
Chaparral and metavolcanic or gabbroic soils
Elevation 1,969 – 3,609 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms January–April
Most likely restricted to metavolcanic and gabbroic
peaks in xeric chamise chaparral. Known to Occur
wart-stemmed ceanothus
Ceanothus verrucosus CNPS: 2.2
Chaparral
Elevation 3 – 1,247 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms December–May
Coastal chaparral intermixed with chamise. Soils consist
of exchequer rocky silt loams and San Miguel-Exchequer
rocky silt loams.
Low Potential
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-3
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
Orcutt’s pincushion
Chaenactis glabriuscula var.
orcuttiana
CNPS: 1B.1
Sandy coastal bluff scrub, and coastal dunes
Elevation 0 – 328 feet
Annual herb, blooms January–August
Undocumented Low Potential
salt marsh bird’s-beak
Chloropyron maritimum ssp.
Maritimum
FESA: Endangered
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 1B.2
Coastal dunes
Elevation 0 – 98 feet
Annual herb, blooms May–October
Undocumented Low Potential
long-spined spineflower
Chorizanthe polygonoides var.
longispina
CNPS: 1B.2
Clay, chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley
and foothill grassland, and vernal pools
Elevation 98 – 5020 feet
Annual herb, blooms April–July
Found on clay lenses that are devoid of shrubs and
occasionally found on the periphery of vernal pool
habitat. Long-spined spineflower can also be found near
the periphery of montane meadows near vernal seeps.
Known to Occur
delicate clarkia
Clarkia delicate CNPS: 1B.2
Gabbroic soils, chaparral, and cismontane woodland
Elevation 771 – 3280 feet
Annual herb, blooms April–June.
Found on the periphery of oak woodlands and
cismontane chaparral. It is found in vernally mesic
situations. Soils include banacas stony loam.
Known to Occur
summer holly
Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp.
Diversifolia
CNPS: 1B.2
Chaparral and cismontane woodland
Elevation 98 – 2592 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms April–June
Undocumented Known to Occur
small-flowered morning glory
Convolvulus simulans CNPS: 4.2
Clay, serpentine seeps, chaparral (openings), coastal
scrub, and valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation 98 – 2,297 feet.
Annual herb, blooms March–June
Friable clay soils devoid of shrubs in openings in
chaparral, sage scrub, and grasslands. Known to Occur
San Diego sand aster
Corethrogyne filaginifolia var.
incana
CNPS: 1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, and coastal scrub
Elevation 10 – 377 feet
Perennial herb, blooms June–September
Undocumented Known to Occur
Otay tarplant
Deinandra conjugens
FESA: Threatened
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 1B.1
Clay, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland
Elevation 82 – 984 feet
Annual herb, blooms May–June
Undocumented Known to Occur
Western dichondra
Dichondra CNPS: 4.2 Known to Occur
Orcutt’s bird’s-beak
Dicranostegia orcuttiana CNPS: 2.1
Coastal scrub
Elevation 33 – 1,148 feet
Annual herb hemiparasitic, blooms March–September
Undocumented Known to Occur
Orcutt’s dudleya
Dudleya attenuata ssp. Orcuttii CNPS: 2.1
Rocky or gravelly habitat, coastal bluff scrub, chaparral,
and coastal scrub
Elevation 10 – 164 feet
Perennial herb, blooms May–July
Openings in Diegan sage scrub near the coast are
preferred. Soils include marina loamy coarse sand close
to Border Field State Park.
Low Potential
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-4
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
Blochman’s dudleya
Dudleya blochmaniae ssp.
Blochmaniae
CNPS: 1B.1
Rocky, often clay or serpentinite habitat. Coastal bluff
scrub, chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland
Elevation 16 – 1,476 feet
Perennial herb, blooms April–June
Sandy opening in Diegan scrub near the coast. Soils
include Las Flores loamy fine sand and terrace
escarpments. Coastal influence is a requirement.
Low Potential
variegated dudleya
Dudleya variegate CNPS: 1B.2
Clay habitat, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools
Elevation 10 – 1,903 feet
Perennial herb, blooms April–June
Openings in sage scrub, chaparral, open grasslands, and
isolated rocky substrates, and found near vernal pools.
Soils include stockpen gravelly loams and Redding
gravelly loams.
Known to Occur
Palmer’s goldenbush
Ericameria palmeri var. palmeri CNPS: 1B.1
Mesic habitat, chaparral, and coastal scrub
Elevation 98 – 1,969 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms July–November
Coastal drainages, mesic chaparral, occasionally occurs as
a hillside element. Soils include Las Posas fine sandy
loam.
Known to Occur
San Diego button-celery
Eryngium aristulatum var.
parishii
FESA: Endangered
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 1B.1
Mesic habitat, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
and vernal pools
Elevation 66 – 2,034 feet
Annual and perennial herb, blooms April–June
Areas with vernal pools, mima mounds, and vernally
moist conditions. Soils include Redding gravelly loams. Known to Occur
cliff spurge
Euphorbia misera CNPS: 2.2
Rocky habitat, coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, and
Mojavean desert scrub
Elevation 33 – 1,640 feet
Perennial shrub, blooms December–August
Low-growing, maritime succulent scrub with a high
incidence of cactus. Soils include Olivenhain cobbly
loams.
High Potential
coast barrel cactus
Ferocactus viridescens CNPS: 2.1
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and
vernal pools
Elevation 10 – 1,476 feet
Perennial stem succulent, blooms May–June
Diegan sage scrub hillsides, often at the crest of slopes
and growing in cobbles, occasionally found on the
periphery of vernal pools and mima mounds. Soil types
include San Miguel-Exchequer rocky silt loams and
Redding gravelly loams.
Known to Occur
chaparral ash
Fraxinus parryi CNPS: 2.2
Coastal dunes, marshes and swamps (coastal salt), and
playas
Elevation 0 – 33 feet
Perennial herb, blooms May–July
Undocumented Low Potential
Mexican flannelbush
Fremontodendron mexicanum
FESA: Endangered
CESA: Rare
CNPS: 1B.1
Gabbroic, metavolcanic, or serpentinite habitat; closed-
cone coniferous forest; chaparral; and cismontane
woodland
Elevation 33 – 2,349 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms March–June
Closed-cone coniferous forest and southern mixed
chaparral. Soil types include San Miguel-Exchequer rocky
silt loams.
Known to Occur
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-5
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
desert bedstraw
Galium proliferum CNPS: 2.2
Rocky, carbonate (limestone) habitat, Joshua tree
woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, and pinyon and
juniper woodland
Elevation 3,904 – 5,348 feet
Annual herb, blooms March–June
Undocumented Known to Occur
Palmer’s grapplinghook
Harpagonella palmeri CNPS: 4.2
Clay habitat, chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland
Elevation 66 – 3,133 feet
Annual herb, blooms March–May
Clay vertisols with open grassy slopes and open Diegan
sage scrub. Diablo clays are favored on the coast. Known to Occur
Tecate cypress
Hesperocyparis forbesii CNPS: 1B.1
Clay, gabbroic, metavolcanic habitat; closed-cone
coniferous forest; and chaparral
Elevation 262 – 4,921 feet
Perennial evergreen tree
Closed-cone coniferous forest and southern mixed
chaparral. Soil types include San Miguel-Exchequer soils. Known to Occur
beach goldenaster
Heterotheca sessiliflora ssp.
Sessiliflora
CNPS: 1B.1
Chaparral (coastal), coastal dunes, and coastal scrub
Elevation 0 – 4,019 feet
Perennial herb, blooms March–December
Coastal sage scrub in sandy locales. Found on beach
bluffs and maritime locales. Low Potential
Graceful tarplant
Holocarpha virgate ssp.
elongata
CNPS: 4.2
Chaparral, grassland, woodland, and coastal scrub
Elevation 180 – 3,300 feet
Annual herb, blooms May – November
Known to Occur
Ramona horkelia
Horkelia truncate CNPS: 1B.3
Clay and gabbroic habitat
Elevation 1,312 – 4,265 feet
Perennial herb, blooms May–June
Chamise chaparral. Soil types include Cieneba very rocky
coarse sandy loams and gabbro.
Moderate
Potential
Otay Mountain lotus
Hosackia crassifolia var.
otayensis
CNPS: 1B.1
Chaparral (metavolcanic, often in disturbed areas)
Elevation 1,247 – 3,297 feet
Perennial herb, blooms May–August
Undocumented Known to Occur
decumbent goldenbush
Isocoma menziesii var.
decumbens
CNPS: 1B.2
Chaparral and coastal scrub (sandy, often open in
disturbed areas)
Elevation 33 – 443 feet
Perennial shrub, blooms April–November
Coastal sage scrub and is found in clay soils. Known to Occur
San Diego marsh-elder
Iva hayesiana CNPS: 2.2
Marshes, swamps, and playas
Elevation 33 – 1,640 feet
Perennial herb, blooms April–October
Creeks and intermittent streambeds, open riparian
canopy allowing substantial sunlight. Known to Occur
spiny rush
Juncus acutus ssp. Leopoldii CNPS: 4.2
Coastal dunes (mesic), meadows and seeps (alkaline
seeps), marshes and swamps (coastal salt)
Elevation 3 – 4,003 feet
Perennial rhizomatous herb, blooms March-June
Coastal salt marsh at brackish locales, alkaline meadows,
and riparian marshes. Known to Occur
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-6
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
Coulter’s goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulteri CNPS: 1B.1
Marshes, swamps (coastal salt), playas, and vernal pools
Elevation 3 – 4,003 feet
Annual herb, blooms February–June.
Tidal marsh areas near the coast at the extreme upper
end of tidal inundation and periphery of vernal pools. Known to Occur
Gander’s pitcher sage
Lepechinia gander CNPS: 1B.3
Gabbroic or metavolcanic habitat
Elevation 1,000 – 3,297 feet
Perennial shrub, blooms June–July
Undocumented Low Potential
Robinson’s pepper-grass
Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
CNPS: 1B.2
Chaparral and coastal scrub
Elevation 3 – 2,904 feet
Annual herb, blooms January–July
Openings in chaparral and sage scrub, usually found in
foothill elevations. Sites are dry, exposed locales.
Moderate
Potential
Nuttall’s lotus
Lotus nuttallianus CNPS: 1B.1
Coastal dunes
Elevation 0 – 33 feet
Annual herb, blooms March–July
Costal dunes and well-protected back dunes with
minimal foot traffic. Soils include beach sand. Low Potential
California boxthorn
Lycium californicum CNPS: 4.2
Coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub
Elevation 0 – 450 feet
Perennial shrub, blooms December – August
Undocumented Known to Occur
small-flowered microseris
Microseris douglasii ssp.
Platycarpha
CNPS: 4.2
Clay soils, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland, and vernal pools
Elevation 49 – 3,510 feet
Annual herb, blooms March-May
Clay lenses in perennial grasslands and on the periphery
of vernal pools, or in broad openings in sage scrub. Known to Occur
felt-leaved monardella
Monardella hypoleuca ssp.
Lanata
CNPS: 1B.2
Chaparral and cismontane woodland
Elevation 984 – 5,167 feet
Perennial rhizomatous herb, blooms June–August
Chaparral understory usually under stands of chamise in
xeric situations. Soils include San Miguel-Exchequer rocky
silt loams often near Otay Mountain.
Known to Occur
Jennifer’s monardella
Monardella stoneana CNPS: 1B.2
Usually rocky intermittent streambeds. Closed-cone
coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, and riparian
scrub
Elevation 33 – 2,592 feet
Perennial herb, blooms June–September
Undocumented Low Potential
little mousetail
Myosurus minimus ssp. Apus CNPS: 3.1
Valley and foothill grassland and alkaline vernal pools
Elevation 66 – 2,100 feet
Annual herb, blooms March–June
Vernal pools. Soils include Huerhuero loam.
Known to Occur
mud nama
Nama stenocarpum CNPS: 2.2
Marshes and swamps (lake margins, riverbanks)
Elevation 16 – 1,640 feet
Annual or perennial herb, blooms January–July
This herb grows on muddy embankments of ponds and
lakes. Known to Occur
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-7
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
spreading navarretia
Navarretia fossalis
FESA: Threatened
CNPS: 1B.1
Chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps, playas, and
vernal pools
Elevation 98 – 2,149 feet
Annual herb, blooms April–June
Vernal pools and vernal pool swales. Soils include
Huerhuero loam. Known to Occur
prostrate vernal pool navarretia
Navarretia prostrata CNPS: 1B.1
Mesic habitat, coastal scrub, meadows, seeps, valley and
foothill grassland (alkaline), and vernal pools
Elevation 49 – 3970 feet
Annual herb, blooms April–July
Undocumented Moderate
Potential
coast woolly-heads
Nemacaulis denudata var.
denudate
CNPS: 1B.2
Coastal dunes habitat
Elevation 0 – 328 feet
Annual herb, blooms April–September
Coastal sand dunes along beaches. Low Potential
slender cottonheads
Nemacaulis denudata var.
gracilis
CNPS: 2.2
Coastal dunes, desert dunes, and Sonoran desert scrub
Elevation 164 – 1,312 feet
Annual herb, blooms March–May
Well-developed dune habitat in the desert or rarely
along coastal beaches. Low Potential
Dehesa nolina
Nolina interrata
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 1B.1
Chaparral (gabbroic, metavolcanic, or serpentinite
habitat)
Elevation 607 – 2,805 feet
Perennial herb, blooms June–July
Open southern mixed chaparral and chamise chaparral.
Soils include Las Posas stony fine sandy loams. Known to occur
snake cholla
Opuntia californica var.
californica
CNPS: 1B.1
Chaparral and coastal scrub
Elevation 98 – 492 feet
Perennial stem succulent, blooms April–May
Undocumented Known to occur
California Orcutt grass
Orcuttia californica
FESA: Endangered
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 1B.1
Vernal pools
Elevation 49 – 2,165 feet
Annual herb, blooms April–August
Vernal pools are the preferred habitat of this prostrate
grass. Soils include gravelly clay loam.
Moderate
Potential
Baja California birdbush
Ornithostaphylos oppositifolia
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 2.1
Chaparral
Elevation 180 – 2,625 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms January–April
Coastal chaparral with dense cover. Soils include
Olivenhain cobbly loam.
Moderate
Potential
Otay mesa mint
Pogogyne nudiuscula
FESA: Endangered
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 1B.1
Vernal pools
Elevation 295 – 820 feet
Annual herb, blooms May–July
Vernal pools with stockpen gravelly clay loam soils. Most
populations are in open grassland with mima mound
topography.
Moderate
Potential
Cedros Island oak
Quercus cedrosensis CNPS: 2.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and
coastal scrub
Elevation 837 – 3,150 feet
Perennial evergreen tree, blooms April–May
Undocumented Low Potential
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-8
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
Nuttall’s scrub oak
Quercus dumosa CNPS: 1B.1
Sandy and clay loam habitat
Elevation 49 – 1,312 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms February–August
Coastal chaparral with a relatively open canopy cover
and relatively flat terrain. Known to Occur
Moreno currant
Ribes canthariforme CNPS: 1B.3
Chaparral and riparian scrub
Elevation 1,115 – 3,937 feet
Perennial deciduous shrub, blooms February–April
Chaparral in areas of acid igneous rock land, typically
with massive, exposed boulders. Low Potential
Santa Catalina Island currant
Ribes viburnifolium CNPS: 1B.2
Chaparral and cismontane woodland
Elevation 98 – 1,000 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms February–April
Sage scrub or low-growing chaparral exposed to ocean
breezes and fogs. Habitat includes canyons and arroyos,
usually partial shade near the coast and steep slopes.
Low Potential
small-leaved rose
Rosa minutifolia
CESA: Endangered
CNPS: 2.1
Chaparral and coastal scrub
Elevation 492 – 525 feet
Perennial deciduous shrub, blooms January–June
North-facing Diegan sage scrub. Soils include Olivenhain
cobbly loam soils. Low Potential
Munz’s sage
Salvia munzii CNPS: 2.2
Chaparral and coastal scrub
Elevation 378 – 3,494 feet
Perennial evergreen shrub, blooms February–April
Chaparral and Diegan sage scrub. Soils include San
Miguel-Exchequer rocky silt loams and Olivenhain cobbly
loams.
Known to occur
San Miguel savory
Satureja chandleri CNPS: 1B.2 Chaparral
Chaparral and oak woodland and may be restricted to
metavolcanic-derived soils. Soils on McGinty peak
include Las Posas stony fine sandy loam.
Low Potential
chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis CNPS: 2.2
Sometimes alkaline habitat, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and coastal scrub
Elevation 49 – 2,625 feet
Annual herb, blooms January–April
Coastal sage scrub on cismontane woodlands and
alkaline flats. Low Potential
purple stemodia
Stemodia durantifolia CNPS: 2.1
Sonoran desert scrub
Elevation 591 – 984 feet
Perennial herb, blooms January–December
Undocumented Low Potential
Laguna Mountains jewel-flower
Streptanthus bernardinus CNPS: 4.3
Chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest
Elevation 2,198 – 8,202 feet
Perennial herb, blooms May–August
Lower montane coniferous forest, partial shade, or near
Boomer stony loams. All have been found with conifers.
It is commonly found in mesic situations but can occupy
drier embankments in granitic gravels and sand.
Low Potential
San Diego County needle grass
Stipa diegoensis CNPS: 4.2 Rocky, often mesic, chaparral, and coastal scrub
Elevation 33 – 2,625 feet
Often in rocky soil on steeper slopes in coastal sage scrub
or chaparral. Known to occur
estuary seablite
Suaeda esteroa CNPS: 1B.2
Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)
Elevation 0 – 16 feet
Perennial herb, blooms May–January
Periphery of coastal salt marshes with pickleweed
species. Soils are mapped as tidal flats. Low Potential
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-9
August 2016
Table B-1 Special Status Plant Species Known or with Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status1 General Habitat Description2 Microhabitat Description Presence
Parry’s tetracoccus
Tetracoccus dioicus CNPS: 1B.2
Chaparral and coastal scrub
Elevation 541 – 3,281 feet
Perennial deciduous shrub, blooms April–May
Low-growing chamise chaparral with moderately dense
canopy cover. Soils include Las Posas and xeric
conditions.
Known to occur
1 CESA = California Endangered Species Act; FESA = federal Endangered Species Act
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
1A = Species presumed extinct.
1B = Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing.
2A = Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing.
2B = Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California but which are more common elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing.
3 = Species for which more information is needed. Distribution, endangerment, and/or taxonomic information is needed.
4 = A watch list of species of limited distribution. These species need to be monitored for changes in the status of their populations.
Threat Code Extensions:
.1 = Seriously endangered in California
.2 = Fairly endangered in California
.3 = Not very threatened in California
2 Habitat Descriptions: California Native Plant Society. Rare Plant Database. Accessed: May 2016 at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/.
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-10
August 2016
Table B-2 Special Status Wildlife Species Known or Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status 1 General Habitat Description Presence
Invertebrates2
Quino checkerspot butterfly
Euphydryas editha quino FE Sunny openings within coastal sage scrub and chaparral scrublands. Requires plantain (Plantago
spp.) or owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta) as a host plant. Known to Occur
Hermes copper
Lycaena hermes FC Host plant is spiny redberry (Rhamnus x). Occurs in coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Known to Occur
San Diego fairy shrimp
Brachinecta sandiegonensis FE Restricted to shallow and small vernal pools, and hardpan and claypan pools. Found in Orange
and San Diego Counties, and Baja California. Known to Occur
Riverside fairy shrimp
Streptocephalus woottoni FE Restricted to shallow and small vernal pools, and hardpan and claypan pools. Found in Orange
and San Diego Counties, and Baja California. Known to Occur
Amphibians
arroyo toad
Anaxyrus californicus FE, CSC
Inhabits washes, arroyos, sandy riverbanks, riparian areas with willows, sycamores, oaks, and
cottonwoods. Extremely specialized habitat needs, including exposed sandy stream sides with
stable terraces for burrowing with scattered vegetation for shelter, and areas of quiet water or
pools free of predatory fishes with sandy or gravel bottoms without silt for breeding.
Moderate Potential
western spadefoot toad
Spea (Sacphiopus) hammondii CSC, WL
Temporary ponds, vernal pools, and backwaters of slow-flowing creeks required for breeding
and egg-laying. Also upland habitats such as grasslands and coastal sage scrub where burrows
are constructed.
Known to Occur
Reptiles
silvery legless lizard
Anniella pulchra CSC
Occurs in moist and warm loose soil with plant cover such as sparsely vegetated areas of beach
dunes; chaparral; pine-oak woodlands; desert scrub; sandy washes; and stream terraces with
sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks.
Low Potential
Belding’s orange-throated whiptail
Aspidoscelis [=Cnemidophorus] hyperythra
beldingi
CSC Chaparral, coastal sage scrub with coarse sandy soils, and scattered brush. Known to Occur
red-diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber CSC Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, along creek banks, and in rock outcrops or piles of debris. Habitat
preferences include dense vegetation in rocky areas. Known to Occur
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata CSC
Associated with permanent water or nearly permanent water from sea level to 6,000 feet.
Prefers habitats with basking sites such as floating mats of vegetation, partially submerged logs,
rocks, or open mud banks.
Known to Occur
Blainville's horned lizard Phrynosoma
blainvillei CSC A variety of habitats including sage scrub, chaparral, and coniferous and broadleaf woodlands.
Found on sandy or friable soils with open scrub. Requires open areas, bushes, and fine loose soil. Known to Occur
coast patch-nosed snake
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea CSC
A variety of habitats including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, grasslands, and agricultural
fields. Prefers open habitats with friable or sandy soils, burrowing rodents for food, and enough
cover to escape predation.
Moderate Potential
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-11
August 2016
Table B-2 Special Status Wildlife Species Known or Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status 1 General Habitat Description Presence
two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii CSC Along permanent streams, creeks, vernal pools, and intermittent streams. Can occur a distance
away from permanent water sources. High Potential
Coronado skink
Plestiodon skitonianus interparietalis CSC Most commonly found in open areas, grassland, sparse brush, and in oak woodlands, usually
under rocks, leaf litter, logs, debris, or in the shallow burrows it digs. High Potential
Birds
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperii WL Usually in oak woodlands, but occasionally in willow or eucalyptus woodlands. Known to Occur
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor CSC Nests in dense colonies in freshwater marshes and forages in nearby grasslands, pastures, or
agricultural fields. Moderate Potential
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland; favors steep and rocky areas. Localized resident. Known to Occur
grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum CSC Nests exclusively in grassland, preferring areas dominated by native bunchgrasses. Known to Occur
Bell’s sage sparrow
Amphispiza belli WL Nests in chaparral dominated by chamise, but is also found in coastal sage scrub south of this
species’ range. Moderate Potential
golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos CFP, WL Nests on cliff ledges, tree tops, and steep slopes; forages in grassland, coastal sage scrub, and
broken chaparral. Known to Occur
short-eared owl
Asio flammeus CSC (nesting) Primarily a winter visitor to marshes and grasslands. Known to Occur
western burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia hypugaea CSC Annual and perennial grasslands, deserts, agricultural areas, disturbed habitat, and scrublands,
characterized by low-growing vegetation. Known to Occur
coastal cactus wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi CSC Coastal sage scrub with extensive stands of tall prickly pear or cholla cacti (Opuntia sp.). Known to Occur
northern harrier
Circus cyaneus hudsonius CSC Coastal lowland, marshes, grassland, agricultural fields. Migrant and winter resident, rare
summer resident. Known to Occur
western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus
americanus occidentalis SE Riparian habitats of willows and cottonwoods with dense understory that abuts slow-moving
watercourses, backwaters, or seeps. Low Potential
white-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus FP Riparian habitats, including oak and sycamore groves, adjacent to grasslands. Known to Occur
southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, SE Dense, riparian woodlands of willow, cottonwood, and other deciduous trees with perennial
water. Low Potential
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris actia WL Grasslands and open habitats with low, sparse vegetation. Known to Occur
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-12
August 2016
Table B-2 Special Status Wildlife Species Known or Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status 1 General Habitat Description Presence
merlin
Falco columbarius WL (wintering) A winter visitor in open habitats such as grasslands, mudflats, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral. Known to Occur
American peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus anatum FP (nesting) Resident in a variety of open habitats near water where shorebirds and waterfowl concentrate.
Nests on cliffs, buildings, cranes, and bridges. Known to Occur
yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens CSC Riparian thickets consisting of willow and other brushy thickets near watercourses. Known to Occur
loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus CSC Year-round resident in grassland, open coastal sage scrub, and chaparral. Known to Occur
double-crested cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus WL (nesting colony) Fresh and saltwater habitats. Nests in trees surrounded by water or on the ground in sites
isolated from predators. Known to Occur
coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica FT, CSC
Diegan coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and flat-
topped buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) below 2,500 feet elevation in Riverside County and
below 1,000 feet elevation along the coastal slope; generally avoids steep slopes above 25% and
dense, tall vegetation for nesting.
Known to Occur
yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia brewsteri CSC A fairly common summer breeding resident found along mature riparian woodlands that consist
of cottonwood, willow, alder, and ash trees. It is restricted to this increasingly patchy habitat. Known to Occur
least Bell’s vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus FE, SE Riparian woodland with understory of dense young willows or mulefat and willow canopy. Nests
often placed along internal or external edges of riparian thickets. Known to Occur
yellow-headed blackbird
Xanthocephalus CSC (nesting) Nests colonially in deeply flooded freshwater marshes. Known to Occur
Mammals
pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus CSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats
with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts must protect them from high temperatures. Moderate Potential
Dulzura California pocket mouse
Chaetodipus califonicus femoralis CSC Slopes covered with chaparral and live oaks. Low Potential
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax CSC Open sandy habitats grown to weeds. Low Potential
Mexican long-tongued bat
Choeronycteris mexicana CSC Deserts and urban areas with buildings, caves, and mines. Low Potential
California (western) mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus CSC Chaparral, live oaks, and arid, rocky regions. Requires downward-opening crevices. Low Potential
western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii CSC Roosts in forests and woodlands; forages over grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands and
forests, and croplands. Low Potential
Appendix B – Special Status Species
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page B-13
August 2016
Table B-2 Special Status Wildlife Species Known or Potential to Occur in the Otay Water District Planning Area
Species Status 1 General Habitat Description Presence
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii CSC Typical habitats include early stages of chaparral, open coastal sage scrub, and grasslands near
the edges of brush. Known to Occur
California leaf-nosed bat
Macrotus californicus CSC Caves and abandoned mines. Low Potential
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia CSC Common to abundant in Joshua tree, pinyon-juniper, mixed and chamise-redshank chaparral,
sagebrush, and most desert habitats. Low Potential
pocketed free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops femorosaccus CSC Creosote bush and chaparral habitats. Low Potential
big free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops macrotis CSC Pinyon-juniper and Douglas fir forests, chaparral and oak forests in mountains and foothills
where rocky cliffs and crevices are present. Low Potential
American badger
Taxidea taxus CSC Coastal sage scrub, mixed chaparral, grassland, oak woodland, chamise chaparral, mixed conifer,
pinyon-juniper, desert scrub, desert wash, montane meadow, open areas, and sandy soils. High Potential
1 Federal/State Listed:
FC=Federal candidate
FE = Federally listed endangered
FT = Federally listed threatened
SE = State listed endangered
ST = State listed threatened
Other:
CFP = California Department of Fish and Game Fully Protected Species
CSC = California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern
WL = California Department of Fish and Game Watch List
!(
#0 ")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U S A
M E X I C O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437 P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS National Wetlands InventoryEstuarineLacustrine (Lake)MarinePalustrine (Marsh)RiverineRiver Lines
Wetlands Associated with CIP Projects within WFMP Planning AreaFigure B-1
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-1 Wetlands Coversheet.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
")
")
")
")
")
")
HILLSDALESYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"_$
P2412
P2411
P2256
P2248
P2202
P2500
P2058
P2586
P2156
P2056P2188
P2500
P2053
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS National Wetlands InventoryEstuarineLacustrine (Lake)MarinePalustrine (Marsh)RiverineRiver Lines
Wetlands Associated with Hillsdale CIP ProjectsFigure B-1a
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-1 Wetlands Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
!(
!(
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
LA PRESASYSTEM
!"_$
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2431
P2233
P2391
P2393
P2511
P2585
P2407
P2196
P2516
P21
9
5
P2511
P2148
P2511
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS National Wetlands InventoryEstuarineLacustrine (Lake)MarinePalustrine (Marsh)RiverineRiver Lines
Wetlands Associated with La Presa CIP ProjectsFigure B-1b
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-1 Wetlands Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
")
!(
")
")
")
")
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
AË
AË
Upper Otay Reservoir
P2412
P2037
P2002
P2576
P2142
P2174
P2411
P2575
P2040
P2256
P2233
P2517
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2196
P2198
P2588
P2586
P2576
P2040
P2197
P2587
P2138
P2204 P2171
P2190
P2156
P2056
P2135
P2188
P2137
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P2203
P2591
P2053
P2435
P2033
P 2 0 5 8
P2430
P 2 1 8 1
R
2
128
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS National Wetlands InventoryEstuarineLacustrine (Lake)MarinePalustrine (Marsh)RiverineRiver Lines
Wetlands Associated with Regulatory CIP ProjectsFigure B-1c
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-1 Wetlands Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
#0 ")
")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2437 P2577
P2578
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2228
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2407
P2235
P2196
P2589
P2590
P2198
P2150
P2374
P2 5 80
P2056
P
2
5
9
5
P2586
P2576
P2197
P
2
1
0
4
P2587
P2138
P
2
2
0
4P2171
P2516
P
2
5
8
2P
2
3
9
8
P2106
P2188
P2137
P 2 4 0 0
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P2583
P2203
P2403
P2148
P2122
P2135
P2591
P2511
P2053
P2528
P2435
P
2
4
5
1
P2058
P2430
P2181
P2511
R
2
0
8
3
R2085
R2037
R 2 0 4 3
R
2
0
8
5
R2133
R2079
R 2042R2082
R 2 0 3 8 R2132
R 2 0 8 0
R2134
R2135
R
2
1
2
8
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceUSFWS National Wetlands InventoryEstuarineLacustrine (Lake)MarinePalustrine (Marsh)RiverineRiver Lines
Wetlands Associated with Central Area CIP ProjectsFigure B-1d
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-1d Wetlands Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.7 1.40.35
Miles
1 in = 1.5 milesPotable Water Pipelines
#0
#0
P2405
P2554
P2 5 8 0
P 2 5 9 8
P
2
5
9
5
P2104
P2554
P2402
P
2
5
8
2
P
2
3
9
8
P2106
P2581
P2583
P2403 P 2 5 9 0
R
2
0
8
3
R2085
R2037
R 2 0 4 3
R2079
R
2
0
8
5
R 2126
R2133
R2042
R 2 0 3 8
R2082
R2132 R 2 1 3 4
R 2 0 8 0
R2135
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 milesRecycled Water Pipelines
See detail for Recycled Water Pipelines
Recycled Water Pipeline Detail
")
!(
")
$1
OTAY MESASYSTEM
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
P2579
P2228
P2392
P2482
P 2 6 0 3
P2589
P 2 6 0 2
P 2 5 9 0
P 2 5 80
P 2 1 0 6
P2374
P2582
P2600
P2583 P2122
P
2
4
5
1
P2451
R 2 1 3 6
R 2 04 3
R2133
R2042
R 2 1 3 4
R2135
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS National Wetlands InventoryEstuarineLacustrine (Lake)MarinePalustrine (Marsh)RiverineRiver Lines
Wetlands Associated with Otay Mesa CIP ProjectsFigure B-1e
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-1 Wetlands Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
!(
#0")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U S A
M E X I C O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
CNDDB HabitatDehesa nolinaHermes copper butterflyMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantRiverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosia
San Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thorn-mintarroyo toadcoastal California gnatcatcherleast Bell's vireoquino checkerspot butterflyspreading navarretia
Potentially Occuring Listed Species within WRMP Planning AreaFigure B-2
100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-2 Listed Species Coversheet.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
")
")
")
")
")
")
HILLSDALESYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"_$
P2412
P2411
P2256
P2248
P2202
P2500
P2058
P2586
P2156
P2056P2188
P2500
P2053
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
CNDDB HabitatDehesa nolinaHermes copper butterflyMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantRiverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosia
San Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thorn-mintarroyo toadcoastal California gnatcatcherleast Bell's vireoquino checkerspot butterflyspreading navarretia
Potentially Occuring Listed Species within Hillsdale SystemFigure B-2a
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-2 Listed Species Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
!(
!(
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
LA PRESASYSTEM
!"_$
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2431
P2233
P2391
P2393
P2511
P2585
P2407
P2196
P2516
P21
9
5
P2511
P2148
P2511
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
CNDDB HabitatDehesa nolinaHermes copper butterflyMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantRiverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosia
San Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thorn-mintarroyo toadcoastal California gnatcatcherleast Bell's vireoquino checkerspot butterflyspreading navarretia
Potentially Occuring Listed Species within La Presa SystemFigure B-2b
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-2 Listed Species Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
")
!(
")
")
")
")
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
AË
AË
Upper Otay Reservoir
P2412
P2037
P2002
P2576
P2142
P2174
P2411
P2575
P2040
P2256
P2233
P2517
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2196
P2198
P2588
P2586
P2576
P2040
P2197
P2587
P2138
P2204 P2171
P2190
P2156
P2056
P2135
P2188
P2137
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P2203
P2591
P2053
P2435
P2033
P 2 0 5 8
P2430
P 2 1 8 1
R
2
1
2
8
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
CNDDB HabitatDehesa nolinaHermes copper butterflyMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantRiverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosia
San Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thorn-mintarroyo toadcoastal California gnatcatcherleast Bell's vireoquino checkerspot butterflyspreading navarretia
Potentially Occuring Listed Species within Regulatory SystemFigure B-2c
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-2 Listed Species Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
#0 ")
")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2437 P2577
P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2228
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2407
P2235
P2196
P2589
P 2 5 9 0
P2198
P2150
P2374
P2 5 80
P 2 5 9 8
P2056
P2586
P2576
P2197
P
2104
P2587
P2138
P
2
2
0
4
P2600
P2171
P2516
P 2 1 0 7
P2402
P
2
5
8
2
P2116
P
2
3
9
8
P2404
P 2 5 9 6
P2188
P2137
P 2 4 0 0
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P2583
P2203
P2403
P2148
P2122
P2135
P2591
P2511
P2053
P2528
P2435
P
2
4
5
1
P2058
P2430
P2181
P2511
R
2
0
8
3
R2085
R2037
R 2 04 3
R
2
0
8
5
R 212 6 R2133
R2079
R2042R2082
R 2 0 3 8 R2132
R 2 0 8 0
R2134
R2135
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceCNDDB HabitatDehesa nolinaHermes copper butterflyMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantRiverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosiaSan Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thorn-mintarroyo toadcoastal California gnatcatcherleast Bell's vireoquino checkerspot butterflyspreading navarretia
Potentially Occuring Listed Species within Central Area SystemFigure B-2d
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-2d Listed Species Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.7 1.40.35
Miles
1 in = 1.5 milesPotable Water Pipelines
#0
#0
P2405
P2554
P 2 6 0 3
P2599
P2 5 8 0
P 2 5 9 8
P2
5
9
5
P
2104
P2554 P2 5 9 7
P2600
P 2 1 0 7
P
2
4
0
2
P
2
5
8
2
P2553
P2116
P
2
3
9
8
P2404
P 2 5 9 6
P 2 1 0 6
P2581
P2583
P2403 P 2 5 9 0
R
2
0
8
3
R 2 1 3 6
R 2 1 3 7
R2085
R2037
R 2 0 4 3
R
2
0
8
5
R2 126
R2133
R 2042
R 2 0 3 8
R2082
R2132 R 2 1 3 4
R 2 0 8 0 R2135
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 milesRecycled Water Pipelines
See detail for Recycled Water Pipelines
Recycled Water Pipeline Detail
")
!(
")
$1
OTAY MESASYSTEM
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
P2579
P2228
P2392
P2482
P 2 6 0 3
P2589
P 2 6 0 2
P 2 5 9 0
P 2 5 80
P 2 1 0 6
P2374
P2582
P2600
P2583 P2122
P
2
4
5
1
P2451
R 2 1 3 6
R 2 04 3
R2133
R2042
R 2 1 3 4
R2135
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
CNDDB HabitatDehesa nolinaHermes copper butterflyMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantRiverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosia
San Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thorn-mintarroyo toadcoastal California gnatcatcherleast Bell's vireoquino checkerspot butterflyspreading navarretia
Potentially Occuring Listed Species within Otay Mesa SystemFigure B-2e
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-2 Listed Species Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
!(
#0")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U S A
M E X I C O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437P2577P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS Critical HabitatArroyo (=arroyo southwestern) toadCoastal California gnatcatcherLeast Bell's vireoMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantQuino checkerspot butterfly
Riverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosiaSan Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thornmintSouthwestern willow flycatcherSpreading navarretia
State and Federally Listed SpeciesFigure B-3
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: USFWS 2016, ESRI 2016
7/25/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-3 USFWS Critical Habitat Coversheet.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
")
")
")
")
")
")
HILLSDALESYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"_$
P2412
P2411
P2256
P2248
P2202
P2500
P2058
P2586
P2156
P2056P2188
P2500
P2053
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS Critical HabitatArroyo (=arroyo southwestern) toadCoastal California gnatcatcherLeast Bell's vireoMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantQuino checkerspot butterfly
Riverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosiaSan Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thornmintSouthwestern willow flycatcherSpreading navarretia
State and Federally Listed Species - Hillsdale SystemFigure B-3a
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-3 USFWS Critical Habitat Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
!(
!(
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
LA PRESASYSTEM
!"_$
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2431
P2233
P2391
P2393
P2511
P2585
P2407
P2196
P2516
P21
9
5
P2511
P2148
P2511
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS Critical HabitatArroyo (=arroyo southwestern) toadCoastal California gnatcatcherLeast Bell's vireoMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantQuino checkerspot butterfly
Riverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosiaSan Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thornmintSouthwestern willow flycatcherSpreading navarretia
State and Federally Listed Species - La Presa SystemFigure B-3b
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-3 USFWS Critical Habitat Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
")
!(
")
")
")
")
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
AË
AË
Upper Otay Reservoir
P2412
P2037
P2002
P2576
P2142
P2174
P2411
P2575
P2040
P2256
P2233
P2517
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2196
P2198
P2588
P2586
P2576
P2040
P2197
P2587
P2138
P2204 P2171
P2190
P2156
P2056
P2135
P2188
P2137
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P2203
P2591
P2053
P2435
P2033
P 2 0 5 8
P2430
P 2 1 8 1
R
2
128
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS Critical HabitatArroyo (=arroyo southwestern) toadCoastal California gnatcatcherLeast Bell's vireoMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantQuino checkerspot butterfly
Riverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosiaSan Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thornmintSouthwestern willow flycatcherSpreading navarretia
State and Federally Listed Species - Regulatory SystemFigure B-3c
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-3 USFWS Critical Habitat Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 miles
!(
#0 ")
")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
AË
AË
Aä
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
P2584
P2437 P2577
P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2228
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2248
P2379
P2202
P2585
P2407
P2235
P2196
P2589
P 2 5 9 0
P2198
P2150
P2374
P2 5 80
P 2 5 9 8
P2056
P2586
P2576
P2197
P
2104
P2587
P2138
P
2
2
0
4
P2600
P2171
P2516
P 2 1 0 7
P2402
P
2
5
8
2
P2116
P
2
3
9
8
P2404
P 2 5 9 6
P2188
P2137
P 2 4 0 0
P
2
1
9
5
P2198
P2583
P2203
P2403
P2148
P2122
P2135
P2591
P2511
P2053
P2528
P2435
P
2
4
5
1
P2058
P2430
P2181
P2511
R
2
0
8
3
R2085
R2037
R 2 04 3
R
2
0
8
5
R 212 6 R2133
R2079
R2042R2082
R 2 0 3 8 R2132
R 2 0 8 0
R2134
R2135
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceUSFWS Critical HabitatArroyo (=arroyo southwestern) toadCoastal California gnatcatcherCushenbury oxythecaLeast Bell's vireoMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantQuino checkerspot butterflyRiverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosiaSan Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thornmintSouthwestern willow flycatcherSpreading navarretia
State and Federally Listed Species - Central Area SystemFigure B-3d
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2014, CASIL 2009, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-3d USFWS Critical Habitat.mxd
I 0 0.7 1.40.35
Miles
1 in = 1.5 milesPotable Water Pipelines
#0
#0
P2405
P2554
P 2 6 0 3
P2599
P2 5 8 0
P 2 5 9 8
P2
5
9
5
P
2104
P2554 P2 5 9 7
P2600
P 2 1 0 7
P
2
4
0
2
P
2
5
8
2
P2553
P2116
P
2
3
9
8
P2404
P 2 5 9 6
P 2 1 0 6
P2581
P2583
P2403 P 2 5 9 0
R
2
0
8
3
R 2 1 3 6
R 2 1 3 7
R2085
R2037
R 2 0 4 3
R
2
0
8
5
R2 126
R2133
R 2042
R 2 0 3 8
R2082
R2132 R 2 1 3 4
R 2 0 8 0 R2135
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
1 in = 1 milesRecycled Water Pipelines
See detail for Recycled Water Pipelines
Recycled Water Pipeline Detail
")
!(
")
$1
OTAY MESASYSTEM
Aä
Lower Otay Reservoir
P2579
P2228
P2392
P2482
P 2 6 0 3
P2589
P 2 6 0 2
P 2 5 9 0
P 2 5 80
P 2 1 0 6
P2374
P2582
P2600
P2583 P2122
P
2
4
5
1
P2451
R 2 1 3 6
R 2 04 3
R2133
R2042
R 2 1 3 4
R2135
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOWD JurisdictionArea of Influence
USFWS Critical HabitatArroyo (=arroyo southwestern) toadCoastal California gnatcatcherLeast Bell's vireoMexican flannelbushOtay tarplantQuino checkerspot butterfly
Riverside fairy shrimpSan Diego ambrosiaSan Diego fairy shrimpSan Diego thornmintSouthwestern willow flycatcherSpreading navarretia
State and Federally Listed Species - Otay Mesa SystemFigure B-3e
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: SanGIS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-3 USFWS Critical Habitat Mapbook.mxd
I 0 0.35 0.70.175
Miles
1 in = 0.75 miles
!(
#0")")
#0
")
!(
")
!(
")!(
!(
")")
#0 !(
!(
")
!(
#0
$1
#0
")
#0
")
")
$1
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
U S A
M E X I C O
LA PRESASYSTEM
REGULATORYSYSTEM
HILLSDALESYSTEM
CENTRAL AREASYSTEM
OTAY MESASYSTEM
SYCUAN RESERVATION
!"^$
!"_$
!"_$
%&s(
Aä
Aä
?p
A¦
AË
Aä !"_$
AË
AË
Aò
%&s(
Lower Otay Reservoir
Upper Otay Reservoir
SweetwaterReservoir
LovelandReservoir
LakeMurray
P2584
P2437 P2577
P2578
P2405
P2579
P2431
P2412
P2037
P2002 P2576
P2142
P2174 P2411
P2575 P2040
P2228
P2256
P2233
P2391
P2434
P2554
P2517
P2393
P2392
P2511
P2482
P2248
P2379
P2202P2585
P2500
P2407
P2235
CIP Projects
!(Reservoir
")Pump Station
$1 Water Supply Project
#0 MiscellaneousPipelineOtay CIP_RecycledOWD JurisdictionArea of InfluenceSan Diego NWR
USFWS San Diego National Wildlife RefugeFigure B-4
100038569 2015 OWD WFMP Update - EIR
Source: USFWS 2016, ESRI 2016
10/28/2016 cava6246 H:\Clients\Otay WD\100038569 2015 OWD WMP Update\EIR\GIS\data\Figure B-4 USFWS SD Ntnl Wildlife Refuge.mxd
I 0 1.25 2.50.625
Miles
1 in = 2.5 miles
APPENDIX C
Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Appendix C – Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page C-1
November 2016
Table C-1 Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Environmental Issue Area
Where impact
were analyzed
in 2016 WFMP
PEIR
Do proposed changes
involve new or
substantially more
significant impacts?
Do any new circumstances involve
new or substantially
more significant
impacts?
Any substantially new
information requiring
new analysis or
verification?
Do 2016 WFMP PEIR
mitigation measures
address/resolve
impacts?
Aesthetics
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Section 4.8.3
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic
highway?
Section 4.8.3
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? Section 4.8.3
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Section 4.8.3
Air Quality
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? Section 4.1.3
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation? Section 4.1.3
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
Section 4.1.3
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? Section 4.1.3
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? Section 4.1.3
Biological Resources
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 CDFW or USFWS?
Section 4.2.3
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Section 4.2.3
Appendix C – Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page C-2
November 2016
Table C-1 Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Environmental Issue Area
Where impact
were analyzed
in 2016 WFMP
PEIR
Do proposed changes
involve new or
substantially more
significant impacts?
Do any new circumstances involve
new or substantially
more significant
impacts?
Any substantially new
information requiring
new analysis or
verification?
Do 2016 WFMP PEIR
mitigation measures
address/resolve
impacts?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Section 4.2.3
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?
Section 4.2.3
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources? Section 4.2.3
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation
plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Section 4.2.3
Cultural Resources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Section 4.3.3
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Section 4.3.3
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? Section 4.3.3
Energy
Does project incorporate WFMP Project Design Features/Standard
Construction Practices to reduce potential impacts to energy
consumption?
Section 4.3.3
Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
Section 4.5.3
Appendix C – Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page C-3
November 2016
Table C-1 Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Environmental Issue Area
Where impact
were analyzed
in 2016 WFMP
PEIR
Do proposed changes
involve new or
substantially more
significant impacts?
Do any new circumstances involve
new or substantially
more significant
impacts?
Any substantially new
information requiring
new analysis or
verification?
Do 2016 WFMP PEIR
mitigation measures
address/resolve
impacts?
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong
seismic groundshaking?
Section 4.5.3
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-
related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Section 4.5.3
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
landslides?
Section 4.5.3
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Section 4.5.3
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
an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Section 4.5.3
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?
Section 4.5.3
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site? Section 4.5.3
Global Climate Change / Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? Section 4.6.3
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Section 4.6.3
Hydrology and Water Quality
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? Section 4.7.3
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level?
Section 4.7.3
Appendix C – Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page C-4
November 2016
Table C-1 Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Environmental Issue Area
Where impact
were analyzed
in 2016 WFMP
PEIR
Do proposed changes
involve new or
substantially more
significant impacts?
Do any new circumstances involve
new or substantially
more significant
impacts?
Any substantially new
information requiring
new analysis or
verification?
Do 2016 WFMP PEIR
mitigation measures
address/resolve
impacts?
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
onsite or offsite?
Section 4.7.3
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 onsite or offsite?
Section 4.7.3
Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Section 4.7.3
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Section 4.7.3
Land Use and Planning
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? Section 4.9.3
Noise
Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards
established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Section 4.10.3
Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? Section 4.10.3
Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Section 4.10.3
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Section 4.10.3
Public Safety / Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Section 4.11.3
Appendix C – Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR
Page C-5
November 2016
Table C-1 Future Project Activity/Site Evaluation Checklist
Environmental Issue Area
Where impact
were analyzed
in 2016 WFMP
PEIR
Do proposed changes
involve new or
substantially more
significant impacts?
Do any new circumstances involve
new or substantially
more significant
impacts?
Any substantially new
information requiring
new analysis or
verification?
Do 2016 WFMP PEIR
mitigation measures
address/resolve
impacts?
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?
Section 4.11.3
Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Section 4.11.3
Be located on a site that 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?
Section 4.11.3
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Section 4.11.3
Traffic & Transportation
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, 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?
Section 4.12.3
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?
Section 4.12.3
Result in inadequate emergency access? Section 4.12.3