The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-05-22 EO&WR Committee Packet 1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS, & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING and SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Board Room MONDAY DECEMBER 5, 2022 12:00 P.M. This is a District Committee meeting. This meeting is being posted as a special meeting in order to comply with the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54954.2) in the event that a quorum of the Board is present. Items will be deliberated, however, no formal board actions will be taken at this meeting. The committee makes recommendations to the full Board for its consideration and formal action. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE COMMITTEE ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE COMMIT- TEE'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. AWARD TWO (2) PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED LAND SURVEYING SERVICES CONTRACTS WITH HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES AND PARADIGM GEOSPATIAL, EACH AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $190,000. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE TWO CONTRACTS WILL NOT EXCEED $190,000 DURING FIS- CAL YEARS 2023, 2024, AND 2025 (ENDING JUNE 30, 2025) (DIPIETRO) [5 MINUTES] 4. AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BURTECH PIPELINE, INC. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OLYMPIC PARKWAY RECYCLED WATER PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $3,945,035 (BEP- PLER) [5 MINUTES] 5. APPROVAL TO INCREASE THE CIP P2677 BUDGET BY $800,000 (FROM $1,800,000 TO $2,600,000) FOR THE LA MEDIA/AIRWAY ROAD WATER LINE RE- LOCATION PROJECT (BEPPLER) [5 MINUTES] 6. APPROVAL TO INCREASE THE CIP P2682 BUDGET BY $350,000 (FROM $300,000 TO $650,000) AND AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO OT ELECTRICAL FOR THE ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $495,650.00 (CAMERON/KENNEDY) [5 MINUTES] 2 7. APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE TRESTLE BRIDGE DEMOLITION PROJECT (COBURN-BOYD) [5 MINUTES] 8. FIRST QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM RE- PORT (LONG) [5 MINUTES] 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEM – DISTRICT’S CONFINED SPACE RESCUE/HAZWOPER TEAM (NEWMAN/VACLAVEK) 10. ADJOURNMENT BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING: Tim Smith, Chair Ryan Keyes All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be delib- erated and may be subject to action by the Board. The agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the Dis- trict’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the agenda and all attachments are also available by contacting the District Secretary at (619) 670-2253. If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to par- ticipate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 619-670-2253 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on December 2, 2022, I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on December 2, 2022. /s/ Tita Ramos-Krogman, District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 4, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Michael O’Donnell Supervising Land Surveyor PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Michael Long, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of Two (2) As-Needed Land Surveying Services Contracts for Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025 GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) award two (2) professional As-Needed Land Surveying Services contracts and to authorize the General Manager to execute agreements with Hunsaker & Associates (Hunsaker) and Paradigm Geospatial (Paradigm), each agreement in an amount not-to-exceed $190,000. The total amount of the two contracts will not exceed $190,000 during Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025 (ending June 30, 2025). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into two (2) professional As-Needed Land Surveying Services contracts with Hunsaker and Paradigm, with each contract in an amount not-to-exceed $190,000 for Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025. The total amount of the two contracts will not exceed $190,000 during Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025. AGENDA ITEM 3 2 ANALYSIS: The District will require the services of two professional land surveying consultants on an as-needed basis for Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025 to support the following: • District’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) • Cadastral Base Mapping Program • Right-of-Way Management Program • USA Mark-Out Program District staff will identify tasks and request cost proposals from the two (2) consultants during the contract period. Each consultant will prepare a detailed scope of work, schedule, and fee for each task order, with the District evaluating the proposals based upon qualifications and cost. The District will enter into negotiations with the consultants, selecting the proposal that has the best value for the District. Upon written task order authorization from the District, the selected consultant shall then proceed with the project as described in the scope of work. The District has used an as-needed contract for land surveying services over the previous ten (10) fiscal years to augment existing staff and for tasks that require specialty services. The District’s experience has demonstrated that it is efficient and cost effective to issue an as-needed contract for land surveying services, which will provide the District with the ability to obtain consulting services in a timely and cost-efficient manner. In addition to land surveying services, this concept has also been used in the past for other disciplines, such as engineering design, construction management, electrical, and environmental services. The As-Needed Land Surveying Services contracts do not commit the District to any expenditure until a task order is approved to perform work on a project. The District does not guarantee work to the consultants, nor does the District guarantee that it will expend all of the funds authorized by the contract on professional services. The District solicited land surveying services by placing an advertisement on the District’s website and using Periscope S2G, the District’s online bid solicitation website on August 31, 2022. Five (5) firms submitted a Letter of Interest and a Statement of Qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for As-Needed Land Surveying Services was sent to the five (5) firms resulting in three (3) proposals received by October 5, 2022. The proposals received are as follows: 3 • Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc. (San Diego, CA) • Paradigm Geospatial, Inc. (San Diego, CA) • Psomas (San Diego, CA) The two (2) firms that chose not to propose were GSI, A Geospatial Firm (San Diego, CA) and Towill, Inc. (San Diego, CA). In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and scored all written proposals. Hunsaker and Paradigm received the highest scores based on their experience, understanding of the scope of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and their composite hourly rate. Hunsaker and Paradigm were the most qualified consultants with the best overall proposals. Both consultants provide similar services to other local agencies and are readily available to provide the services required. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in Attachment B. Hunsaker and Paradigm submitted the Company Background Questionnaire, as required by the RFP, and staff did not find any significant issues. In addition, staff checked their references and performed an internet search on the two (2) companies. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find any outstanding issues with the internet search. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The funds for these contracts will be expended from the Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025 budgets for various projects or programs. These contracts are for professional As-Needed Land Surveying Consulting Services based on the District's needs and schedule, and expenditures will not be made until a task order is approved by the District for the consultant's services on a specific project or program. Based on a review of the financial budgets, the Project Manager anticipates that the budgets will be sufficient to support the professional as-needed land surveying consulting services required for various projects and the programs noted above. The Finance Department has determined that under the current rate model, the funds to cover these contracts will be available as budgeted for these projects or programs. 4 STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: None. MO/ML:jf https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/As-Needed Services/Land Surveying/FY 2023- 2025/Staff Report/BD_01-04-23_Staff Report_Award of As-Needed Land Surveying Services (MO-ML).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: Various Award of Two (2) As-Needed Land Surveying Services Contracts for Fiscal Years 2023, 2024, and 2025 COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 5, 2022. The Committee supported Staff’s recommendation. NOTE: The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board. Qualifications of Team Responsiveness and Project Understanding Technical and Management Approach INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN AVERAGE SUBTOTAL - WRITTEN Proposed Rates* Consultant's Commitment to DBE TOTAL SCORE 30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 Poor/Good/ Excellent Bernardo Separa 28 24 28 80 Charles Mederos 27 24 27 78 Kevin Cameron 28 24 28 80 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 28 24 28 80 Mike O'Donnell 28 24 28 80 Bernardo Separa 28 23 28 79 Charles Mederos 28 24 28 80 Kevin Cameron 28 23 27 78 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 28 24 28 80 Mike O'Donnell 28 24 28 80 Bernardo Separa 27 22 26 75 Charles Mederos 28 24 27 79 Kevin Cameron 28 22 26 76 Lisa Colburn-Boyd 27 23 28 78 Mike O'Donnell 28 22 28 78 Firm Hunsaker & Associates Psomas Paradigm Geospatial Rates $1,219 $1,550 $1,232 Score 15 1 14 *Note: Review Panel does not see or consider proposed fee when scoring other categories. The proposed fee is scored by District staff not on the Review Panel. ATTACHMENT B SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS As-Needed Land Surveying - Fiscal Years 2023 to 2025 Hunsaker & Associates 95 WRITTEN REFERENCES 15 Excellent Psomas 80Y Paradigm Geospatial 77 14 RATES SCORING CHART 79 Y Y80 91 1 Excellent MAXIMUM POINTS STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 4, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Beppler Senior Civil Engineer PROJECT: R2159-001103 DIV. NO. 4 APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Michael Long, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract to Burtech Pipeline, Inc. for the Olympic Parkway Recycled Water Pipeline Replacement Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with Burtech Pipeline, Inc. (Burtech) for the construction of the Olympic Parkway Recycled Water Pipeline Replacement Project in an amount not-to- exceed $3,945,035 (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a construction contract with Burtech for the Olympic Parkway Recycled Water Pipeline Replacement Project (Project) in an amount not-to- exceed $3,945,035. AGENDA ITEM 4 2 ANALYSIS: The existing 680 Pressure Zone (PZ) 20-inch recycled water line in Olympic Parkway located within the City of Chula Vista between Heritage Road and La Media Road was installed in 2002 and is approximately 5,700 linear feet in length. Excessive breaks on the line required a majority of the pipeline to be taken out of service and designated for replacement. The pipe material is polyvinyl chloride (PVC) manufactured by JM Eagle that was subject to quality issues during this time frame. The scope of work generally consists of the construction of approximately 5,730 linear feet of 16-inch recycled water line, connections to existing recycled water lines and services, removal and abandonment of existing recycled water lines, pavement and surface restoration, traffic control, cathodic protection, and all other associated work and appurtenances as required by the Contract Documents. The Project was advertised on October 12, 2022 using Periscope S2G (formerly BidSync), the District’s online bid solicitation website, on the Otay Water District’s website, and in the Daily Transcript. Additionally, notifications of the Project being out for bid were emailed directly to the up-to-date list of contractors that have previously worked for the District. This is in addition to the notifications provided by Periscope S2G to contractors in the Southern California area, with several hundred identified for the project classifications checked for this Project. Periscope S2G provided electronic distribution of the Bid Documents, including specifications, plans, and addenda. An on-line Pre-Bid Meeting was held on October 27, 2022, which was attended by seven (7) contractors and vendors. Three (3) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to address questions and clarifications to the contract documents during the bidding period. Bids were publicly opened on- line on November 15, 2022, with the following result: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT 1 Burtech Pipeline, Inc., Vista, CA $3,945,035.00 2 SRK Engineering, Escondido, CA $4,666,827.00 3 CCL Contracting, Inc., Escondido, CA $5,373,847.00 4 Blue Pacific Eng. & Constr., San Diego, CA $5,830,800.00 The Engineer's Estimate is $4,100,000. 3 A review of the bid was performed by District staff for conformance with the contract requirements and determined that Burtech is a responsive and responsible bidder. Burtech holds a Class A, General Engineering, Contractor’s License in the State of California, which meets the contract document’s requirements, and is valid through January 31, 2024. The reference checks indicated a good to excellent performance record on similar projects. An internet background search of the company was performed and revealed no outstanding issues with this company. Burtech has previously worked for the District including the Air-Vac Replacements on the 14-inch Recycled Water Line from the Chapman plant and the Fuerte Drive Sewer Relocation projects and their performance was good. Staff verified that the bid bond provided by Burtech is valid. Staff will also verify that Burtech’s Performance Bond and Labor and Materials Bond are valid prior to execution of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP R2159, as approved in the FY 2023 budget, is $6,000,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including this contract, are $4,766,286. See Attachment B for the budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget for CIP R2159, the Project Manager anticipates the Project will be completed within the budgeted amounts. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding for CIP R2159 is available from the Replacement Fund. GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none were available for this Project. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." 4 LEGAL IMPACT: None. SB/BK:jf Https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/R2159 Olympic Parkway Pipeline Rehabilitation/Staff Reports/2023-01-04/1-4-23 Staff Report R2159.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail Exhibit A – Project Location Map ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: R2159-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Burtech Pipeline, Inc. for the Olympic Parkway Recycled Water Pipeline Replacement Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 5, 2022. The Committee supported staff's recommendation. NOTE: The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: R2159-001103 Award of a Construction Contract to Burtech Pipeline, Inc. for the Olympic Parkway Recycled Water Pipeline Replacement Project 11/16/2022 Budget Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost Vendor/Comments 6,000,000 Planning Contracted Services $666 $666 $0 $666 PENHALL COMPANY Regulatory Agency Fees $50 $50 $0 $50 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Standard Salaries $9,186 $9,186 $0 $9,186 Total Planning $9,902 $9,902 $0 $9,902 Design Regulatory Agency Fees $3,000 $3,000 $0 $3,000 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Consultant Contracts $36,800 $33,100 $3,700 $36,800 STC TRAFFIC INC $38,156 $38,156 $0 $38,156 NINYO & MOORE $7,410 $7,410 $0 $7,410 WSC INC $214,001 $158,674 $55,327 $214,001 NV5 INC Service Contracts $74 $74 $0 $74 DAILY JOURNAL Standard Salaries $70,000 $62,327 $7,673 $70,000 Total Design $369,441 $302,741 $66,700 $369,441 Construction Contracted Services $76 $76 $0 $76 HOME DEPOT $3,749 $3,749 $0 $3,749 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY $2,620 $2,620 $0 $2,620 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES $12,059 $12,059 $0 $12,059 MEASUREMENT CONTROL $55,023 $55,023 $0 $55,023 VALVE APOLLO Regulatory Agency Fees $842 $842 $0 $842 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO $5,000 $0 $5,000 $5,000 CITY OF CHULA VISTA Consultant Contracts $22,540 $0 $22,540 $22,540 NV5 INC $60,000 $0 $60,000 $60,000 Construction Management Construction Contract $3,945,035 $0 $3,945,035 $3,945,035 BURTECH PIPELINE INC $200,000 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Contingency @ 5% Standard Salaries $80,000 $0 $80,000 $80,000 Total Construction $4,386,943 $74,368 $4,312,575 $4,386,943 Grand Total $4,766,286 $387,011 $4,379,275 $4,766,286 OTAY WATER DISTRICTOLYMPIC PARKWAY PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROJECTLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT A\\Otay Water District\ENG CIP - Documents\R2159 Olympic Parkway Pipeline Rehabilitation\Staff Reports\05-05-21\Exhibit A.mxd Otay RanchHigh School !\ VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ÃÅ54 ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ905 §¨¦805 FNTS CIP R2159F 0 1,000500 Feet O LY M PIC P K W Y E . P A L O M A R S T L A M E D I A R D H E R I T A G E R D STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 4, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Beppler Senior Civil Engineer PROJECT: P2677-001103 DIV. NO. 1 APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Michael Long, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval to Increase the CIP P2677 Budget in an Amount of $800,000 for the La Media/Airway Road Water Line Relocation Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)approve an increase to the CIP P2677 budget by $800,000 (from $1,800,000 to $2,600,000) for La Media/Airway Road Water Line Relocation Project (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board approval to increase the CIP P2677 budget by $800,000 (from $1,800,000 to $2,600,000) for costs associated with construction of the La Media/ Airway Road Water Line Relocation Project. The Reimbursement Agreement with the City of San Diego (City), approved by the Board in April 2022, provides that the District will deposit an amount to cover construction and project administration costs with the City within ninety (90) calendar days of the City’s written confirmation of the Project cost after the opening of bids. Bids were received by the City on October 12, 2022 and the required deposit amount for the Otay Water District bid items is $2,200,011, about $700,000 higher than the estimated $1,517,000 previously approved by this Board. AGENDA ITEM 5 2 ANALYSIS: The City of San Diego (City) is improving and widening La Media Road between State Route 905 and Siempre Viva Road in the Otay Mesa area. The work also includes significant storm drainage improvements at the Airway Road intersection. The City requires the District to relocate and adjust its facilities within the City’s right-of-way at the District’s cost. In order to minimize impacts to the Otay Mesa community and limit coordination issues, District staff and the City decided to combine the utility relocations and the road work for one contractor to perform the work. The City incorporated the District's utility relocations into their design package and bid it as one project. The City advertised the "Project" in August 2022 and opened bids on October 12, 2022. Only two (2) bids were received by the City, from TC Construction and Flatiron, their bids were $4.1 million and $15.9 million, respectively, over the City’s estimate of $38.7 million. The City will administer the Project with District staff providing assistance during construction activities as needed. District inspection personnel will perform oversight of the water line construction. Award of the Project is anticipated in November 2022 with completion of construction expected by October 2024. The District scope of work includes installation of approximately 1,100 linear feet of 16-inch and 18-inch potable water lines and facilities along La Media Road and Airway Road to avoid conflicts with road and storm drain improvements. The construction cost associated with the utility relocations is $1,733,696 plus a ten (10) percent contingency of $173,370. The City’s Construction Administration Cost is estimated at fifteen (15) percent of the construction cost or $260,054. An allowance of $32,891 has been estimated for the design engineer, Rick Engineering, to provide construction support. The total construction estimate, to be administered through the City, is $2,200,011. This amount has been adjusted from the previously estimated total bid amount of $1,517,025. The reimbursement agreement was approved by the Board at the April 6, 2022 meeting. With the exception of emergencies, prior to the approval of any construction change or change order affecting the District, the City will obtain the written consent of the District. The design of the Project was completed by Rick Engineering, the City’s consultant, for the road and storm drainage improvements design. The District was not advised regarding the Project until the design of the overall Project was about ninety (90) percent complete, so Rick Engineering agreed to complete the water utilities design as part of the overall Project design to avoid delaying the Project. 3 The $800,000 budget increase is needed to account for higher construction costs from inflationary factors and bidding climate, as well as additional anticipated construction services by District staff. A majority of the increased costs are associated with the PVC pipe and butterfly valves bid items. A review of recent construction projects administered under other agencies found that more construction services staff time than what was initially estimated should be allocated. FISCAL IMPACT: Joseph Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The FY 2023 budget for CIP P2677 is $1,800,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including this agreement, are $2,595,011. See Attachment B for budget detail. Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager anticipates that with a budget increase of $800,000, the Project will be completed within the new budget amount of $2,600,000. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Replacement Fund for CIP P2677. GRANTS/LOANS: Engineering staff researched and explored grants and loans and found none were available for this Project. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: None. SB:BK:jf https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/P2677 La Media Road and Airway Road Utility Relocations/Staff Reports/Jan 2023 - Budget Increase/BD 01-04-2023 Staff Report P2677 La Media WL Budget Revision (SB-BK).docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – P2677 Budget Detail Exhibit A – Location Map Exhibit B – City of San Diego Invoice ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2677-001103 Approval to Increase the CIP P2677 Budget in an Amount of $800,000 for the La Media/Airway Road Water Line Relocation Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 5, 2022. The Committee supported Staff’s recommendation. NOTE: The "Committee Action" is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2677-001103 Approval to Increase the CIP P2677 Budget in an Amount of $800,000 for the La Media/Airway Road Water Line Relocation Project Project Budget Details P2677 - La Media/Airway Road 870 PZ WL Relocation 11/1/2022 Budget Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost Vendor/Comments 2,600,000 Design Standard Salaries $25,000 $20,634 $4,366 $25,000 Total Design $25,000 $20,634 $4,366 $25,000 Construction Construction Contract $1,733,696 $0 $1,733,696 $1,733,696 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR $173,370 $0 $173,370 $173,370 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (10%) $260,054 $0 $260,054 $260,054 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING/ SOFT COSTS (15%) $32,891 $0 $32,891 $32,891 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT (RICK ENGINEERING) Project Contingency $220,000 $0 $220,000 $220,000 10% CONTINGENCY Standard Salaries $150,000 $729 $149,271 $150,000 Total Construction $2,570,011 $729 $2,569,282 $2,360,011 Grand Total $2,595,011 $21,363 $2,573,648 $2,595,011 OTAY WATER DISTRICTLA MEDIA RD AND AIRWAY RD UTILITY RELOCATIONSLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT AC:\Users\donald.bienvenue\Otay Water District\ENG CIP - Documents\P2677 La Media Road and Airway Road Utility Relocations\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\Exhibit A-Location Map.mxd !\ VICINITY MAP DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ÃÅ54 PROJECT SITE ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ905 §¨¦805 FNTS PROJECT SITE CIP P2677F 0 1,100550 Feet SR-905 OTAY MESA RD SR-125 AIRWAY RD SIEMPRE VIVA RD LA MEDIA RD The City o/ SAN * DIEGQ? POBox 129030 San Diego, CA 92112-9030 Return Service Requested **********SINGLE-PIECE OTAY WATER DISTRICT 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BLVD SPRING VALLEY CA 91978-2004 INVOICE SAP Invoice No: Invoice Date: Business Partner No: Contract Account No: Reference: Invoice Amount (USD): Payment Due: City Contact Name: City Contact Phone No: DESCRIPTION 1000341679 10/27/2022 9000002254 500000002919 XXXXXX2210271159 $2,200,011.00 01/27/2023 STEPHEN BEPPLER (619)670-2209 PROJECT S15018 LA MEDIA RD IMPROVEMENTS -OTAY WATER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT CN CJ in C£:<• mr~r~ < ,— o Invoices that remain unpaid after the due date will be referred to the City Treasurer for collections. Unpaid balances are subjectto a collectionreferral fee of 10%or $25, whicheveris greater, up to a maximumof $1,000, and interest. As requiredby law,you are hereby notified that a negativecredit entryreflecting on your credit report maybe submittedto a credit reporting agency if the amount is not paid by the due date. Return this portion with payment. Make check payable to City Treasurer. O New address or phone number?Check this box and enter your new information on reverse side. MAIL PAYMENT TO: CITY OF SAN DIEGO POBOX 129030 SAN DIEGO CA 92112-9030 SAP Invoice No: Invoice Date: Business Partner No: Contract Account No: Reference: Invoice Amount (USD): Payment Due: 1000341679 10/27/2022 9000002254 500000002919 XXXXXX2210271159 $2,200,011.00 01/27/2023 D171 1 500000002111 10003Mlfci71 fl XXXXXXEE10E71151 DOOEEODDllOO 1 1 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 4, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Cameron Senior Civil Engineer PROJECT: P2682-001103 DIV. NO.Various APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Michael Long, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval to Increase the CIP P2682 Budget in an Amount of $350,000.00 and Award of a Construction Contract to OT Electrical for the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board): 1.Approve to Increase the CIP P2682 budget by $350,000.00 (from $300,000.00 to $650,000.00); and 2.Award a construction contract to OT Electrical and to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with OT Electrical for the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project in an amount not-to-exceed $495,650.00 (see Exhibit A for the Project’s various locations). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to execute an agreement with OT Electrical for the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project in an amount not-to-exceed $495,650.00. AGENDA ITEM 6 2 ANALYSIS: Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) is an integrated system of equipment, communications, and information management systems for utilities to remotely collect customer water usage data in real time. AMI can provide a wide range of benefits, including improved utility operations, improved water conservation and non-revenue water initiatives, and enhanced security and resilience. The Project includes trenching, pulling power from existing cabinets, installing wiring and conduits, two electrical cabinets, two base towers, and seven repeater antennas. The AMI portion of the Project includes installing network hardware, upgrading meter data management software, installing AMI-compatible meter box lids, and firmware upgrades to 24,000 existing AMI-capable meters. This will also allow customers to access their consumption data online and compare historic usage. This enables customers to better understand and make informed decisions about their water use and associated water bill. The Project is expected to save 1,719 acre-feet of water annually, primarily through quicker identification of leaks and breaks in the system and an overall reduction of water use. The Project’s original scope was for a trial “pilot” program; however, the scope had to be expanded to a fully implemented program so the District could obtain maximum cost effective level of hourly user data from the existing AMI meters that had already been upgraded. Also, a fully implemented program was required to apply for the available grant funding. The expanded scope was not realized until after the last budget cycle. The Project was advertised on November 1, 2022, using the District’s online bid solicitation website, Periscope S2G, on the Otay Water District’s website, and in the Daily Transcript. A Pre-Bid Meeting was held on November 10, 2022, which was attended by three (3) contractors and vendors via an online Zoom meeting. Four (4) addenda were sent out to all bidders and plan houses to address questions and clarifications to the contract documents during the bidding period. Bids were publicly opened online via a Zoom meeting on November 21, 2022, with the following results: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID AMOUNT 1 OT Electric Chula Vista, CA $495,650.00 3 The Engineer's estimate for the Pilot Phase was $285,000; however the revised estimate for the fully implemented program is $505,000. Periscope S2G showed 32 contractors and plan rooms viewed the Project. Two of the three pre-bid attendees teamed up, OT Electric and Day Wireless, to provide the one bid received. The other pre-bid attendee, HydroPro Solutions, is a Master Meter distributor and did not submit a bid. Staff believes that the lack of bids was due to current bidding climate and the relatively specialized work at multiple sites. A review of the bids was performed by District staff for conformance with the contract requirements. Staff determined that OT Electric is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. OT Electrical holds a Class C-10 Electrical Contractor’s license, which expires on July 31, 2024. OT Electrical submitted the Company Background and Company Safety Questionnaires, as required by the Contract Documents. Staff checked references, and the response from other agencies indicated OT Electrical has an overall good performance rating on similar projects. The proposed Project Manager has experience in California on similar projects and received excellent recommendations. Staff has verified the validity of the bid bond provided by The Gray Casualty & Insurance Company. Upon Board approval, OT Electrical will sign the contract, furnish the performance bond and labor and materials bond, and staff will verify both bonds prior to fully executing the contract. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer The total budget for CIP P2682, as approved in the FY 2023 budget, is $300,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, are $641,943. See Attachment B for the budget detail. The Project Manager anticipates that with a budget increase of $350,000, the Project will be completed within the new budget amount of $650,000. The Finance Department has determined that, under the current rate model, 100% of the funding is available from the Betterment ID 22 Fund. In addition, grant funding was approved for the construction costs as described below. 4 GRANTS/LOANS: The District received grant funding from the Bureau of Reclamation called The WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant, and will be utilized to reimburse $234,645 of the construction costs upon completion. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: None. KC/BK:mlw C:\Onedrive\Otay Water District\ENG CIP - Documents\P2682 AMI Pilot Project\Staff Reports\01-04-2023 Staff Report Advanced Metering Infrastructure [AMI] (KC-BK).Docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Budget Detail – CIP P2682 Exhibit A – Project Location Map ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2682-001103 Approval to Increase the CIP P2682 Budget in an Amount of $350,000.00 and Award of a Construction Contract to OT Electrical for the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 5, 2022. The Committee supported staff's recommendation. NOTE: The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board. ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2682-001103 Approval to Increase the CIP P2682 Budget in an Amount of $350,000.00 and Award of a Construction Contract to OT Electrical for the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Project 11/18/2022 Budget Original: $300,000 Revised: $650,000 Construction Standard Salaries 75,000 9,855 65,145 75,000 Construcion Contract 495,650 - 495,650 495,650 OT ELECTRIC Service Contracts 28,615 28,615 - 28,615 HOCH CONSULTING APC 15,000 - 15,000 15,000 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 2,760 1,400 1,360 2,760 OT ELECTRIC Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN Service Contracts 85 85 - 85 DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION Project Contingency 24,783 - 24,783 24,783 5% CONTINGENCY Total Construction 641,943 40,005 601,937 641,943 Grand Total 641,943 40,005 601,937 641,943 Vendor/Comments Otay Water District P2682-AMI Project Committed Expenditures Outstanding Commitment & Forecast Projected Final Cost OTAY WATER DISTRICTADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT AC:\Users\donald.bienvenue\OneDrive - Otay Water District\Desktop\Staff Report-Exhibit A.mxd !\ VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE(TYPICAL) DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ÃÅ54 !\ !\!\!\ !\ !\ !\ !\ ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ905 §¨¦805 1485-2 RES CIP P2682F 0 1.50.75 Miles 450-1 RES 1200-1 RES 1090-1 RES 624-2 RES 944-1 RES850-2 RES 711-2 RES Lower Otay Reservoir485-1 RES OTAY MESA CHULA VISTA SPRING VALLEY JAMUL U.S.A. M EXICO STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 4, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist PROJECT: P2460- 001101 DIV. NO. 2 APPROVED BY: Bob Kennedy, Engineering Manager Michael Long, Chief, Engineering Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Trestle Bridge Demolition Project GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board) approves the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Trestle Bridge Demolition Project (see Exhibit A for Project location). COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To obtain Board approval for the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Trestle Bridge Demolition Project. ANALYSIS: The Otay Water District (District) is proposing the demolition of its steel trestle bridge over the Otay River in the Otay Mesa area directly south of the City of San Diego Water Treatment Plant and Otay Lakes Regional Park. The trestle bridge was built to carry a AGENDA ITEM 7 2 30-inch water pipeline which was abandoned and replaced by the Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline in 2001. The trestle also carries an abandoned high-pressure gas line that supplied the 870-1 Pump Station which had prevented the trestle from being demolished previously. SDG&E abandoned this gas line in 2017 and replaced it with a feed from the south. The District intends to remove the trestle and pipeline to address liability concerns. In conjunction with District staff, ICF Jones & Stokes (ICF) prepared the initial study and MND for the Project under their as-needed environmental services contract with the District. The Initial Study concluded that potentially significant impacts would occur with respect to biological resources, cultural resources and geology, soils, and paleontological resources. However, these impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation will include pre-construction surveys, resource avoidance, and project timing for biological resources, resource management if archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities for cultural resources, and a paleontological monitor if excavation is below artificial fill for potential impacts to paleontological resources. The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting plan (MMRP) provides the details of the measures that need to be taken for mitigation and is included with the Final MND (Attachment B). Based on the findings of these documents, and with proper mitigation measures taken, the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. During the 30-day notice period for the draft MND, three (3) comment letters were received from Caltrans, District 11, the San Diego County Archaeological Society, and the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife / United States Fish and Wildlife Service joint letter. The three letters and the responses to their comments are presented in the Final MND (Attachment B). FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." 3 LEGAL IMPACT: None. LC-B/BK:jf https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engcip/Shared Documents/P2460 Otay River Trestle Demo/Staff Reports/MND Staff Report/BD 01-04-23 Staff Report Trestle Bridge Demolition Project MND (LCB-BK).docx Attachments: Exhibit A – Project Location Map Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Final MND OTAY WATER DISTRICTOTAY RIVER TRESTLE BRIDGE DEMOLITIONLOCATION MAP EXHIBIT AC: \ U s e r s \ d o n a l d . b i e n v e n u e \ O t a y W a t e r D i s t r i c t \ E N G C I P - D o c u m e n t s \ P 2 4 6 0 O t a y R i v e r T r e s t l e D e m o \ G r a p h i c s \ E x h i b i t s - F i g u r e s \ E x h i b i t A L o c a t i o n M a p . m x d !\ VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE DIV 5 DIV 1 DIV 2 DIV 4 DIV 3 ÃÅ54 ÃÅ125 ÃÅ94 ÃÅ905 §¨¦805 FNTS PROJECT SITE CIP P2460F 0 940470 Feet LOWER OTAYRESERVOIR CITY OF SAN DIEGOOTAY WATER TREATMENTPLANT OTAY LAKESCOUNTY PARK OTAY RIVER WU E S T E R D SOUTH ACCESS ROUTE NORTH ACCESS ROUTE A L T A R D OWD 571-1RESERVOIR ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: P2460-001101 Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Trestle Bridge Demolition Project COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 5, 2022. The Committee supported Staff's recommendation. NOTE: The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board. FINAL OTAY WATER DISTRICT TRESTLE BRIDGE DEMOLITION PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST P REPARED FOR: Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 91978 Contact: Ms. Lisa Coburn‐Boyd, Environmental Compliance Specialist (619) 670‐2219 P REPARED BY: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA, 92101 Contact: Lance Unverzagt (858) 444‐3922 November 2022 ATTACHMENT B ICF. 2022. Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project. Administrative Draft. January. (ICF 198.20). Otay Mesa, San Diego County, CA. Prepared for Otay Water District, Spring Valley, CA. Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Final IS/MND Errata December 2022 1 Final IS/MND Errata OTAY WATER DISTRICT TRESTLE BRIDGE DEMOLITION PROJECT FINAL IS/MND ERRATA Introduction Otay Water District distributed the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Trestle Bridge Demolition Project to the OWD Board of Directors in December, 2022 in preparation for a January 5, 2023 hearing. Following distribution, a minor error was identified. This errata item clarifies the error in the Final IS/MND and confirms that the error does not raise new important issues or potentially significant effects to the environment. This change is not a substantial revision as defined in Section 15073.5(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and therefore, does not require recirculation. Errata Item As discussed in Section 3.1 of the IS/MND, the “proposed project consists of the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24-inch water pipeline in the Otay Mesa area. The pipeline was replaced by the Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline in 2001. The trestle also carries an abandoned high-pressure gas line that supplied the 870-1 Pump Station which had prevented the trestle from being demolished previously. SDG&E abandoned this gas line in 2017 and replaced it with a feed from the south. The existing water pipeline is no longer in service and the District intends to remove the trestle and pipeline to address liability concerns.” Prior to the hearing it was discovered that the existing water pipeline, which utilizes the trestle in order to span the Otay River, was incorrectly stated as being 24-inches in diameter. The correct diameter of this pipeline is 30-inches. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15073.5(b), a lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability has previously been given pursuant to Section 15072, but prior to its adoption. A "substantial revision" of the negative declaration shall mean: 1.A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or 2.The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. There is no evidence in light of the record, that the error in the diameter of the pipeline to be demolished is a substantial revision, pursuant to CEQA Section 15073.5(b). The error would not result in the project creating a new avoidable significant effect; nor would there be any mitigation measures proposed that would no longer be sufficient to reduce the effect(s) to insignificance. Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Final IS/MND Errata December 2022 2 Final IS/MND Errata INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final i November 2022 ICF 198.20 Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... iv Chapter 1 Response to Comments ................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Outline of Initial Study Checklist ...................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.4 Construction..................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5 Operation ......................................................................................................................... 3-8 Chapter 4 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Determination .................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 4-3 I. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 4-4 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................... 4-6 III. Air Quality ................................................................................................................................ 4-8 IV. Biological Resources .............................................................................................................. 4-11 Mitigation Measure .................................................................................................................... 4-18 V. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 4-20 VI. Energy .................................................................................................................................... 4-23 VII. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ..................................................................... 4-25 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 4-29 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 4-31 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 4-35 XI. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................... 4-38 XII. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 4-39 XIII. Noise .................................................................................................................................... 4-40 XIV. Population and Housing....................................................................................................... 4-42 Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final ii November 2022 ICF 198.20 XV. Public Services ...................................................................................................................... 4-43 XVI. Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 4-45 XVII. Transportation .................................................................................................................... 4-46 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 4-49 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 4-51 XX. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................. 4-53 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................... 4-55 Chapter 5 References Cited ............................................................................................................. 5-1 I. Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 III. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .............................................................................................. 5-1 IV. Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 5-1 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 VII. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ............................................................................. 5-1 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................................... 5-1 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 5-2 XII. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 5-2 XII. Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 5-2 XIII. Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 5-2 XVII. Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 5-3 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 5-3 XX. Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................... 5-3 Appendix A Biological Resources Letter Report Appendix B Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final iii November 2022 ICF 198.20 Tables Table 1 Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Strategies .................................................. 4-18 Table 2 CEQA VMT Screening ..................................................................................................... 4-47 Figures Page Figure 3-1 Regional Vicinity ............................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Existing Zoning ................................................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-4 Existing Land Use ............................................................................................................. 3-6 Figure 3-5 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 3-7 Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final iv November 2022 ICF 198.20 Acronyms and Abbreviations Arid West Supplement Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region BTR Biological Resources Technical Report CAAs Clean Air Acts CAP Climate Action Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide District’s Otay Water District DPM Diesel Particulate Matter EIR Environmental Impact Report FAA Federal Aviation Administration GHG greenhouse gas IS Initial Study MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program MSL mean sea level N2O nitrous oxide NOX nitrogen oxide O3 ozone OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OPR Office of Planning and Research PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter less than 10 or 2.5 microns in diameter PRC Public Resources Code PRMMP Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy ROG reactive organic gas RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SB Senate Bill SDAB San Diego Air Basin SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District SIP State Implementation Plan SOX sulfur oxide SR State Route TSG Transportation Study Guidelines Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final v November 2022 ICF 198.20 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 1-1 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Chapter 1 Response to Comments List of Commenters Letter Number Commenter Agency Date A Maurice Eaton California Department of Transportation August 16, 2022 B Jonathan D. Snyder, David A. Mayer California Department of Fish and Wildlife; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service October 4, 2022 C James W. Role San Diego Archaeological Society, Inc. September 29, 2022 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 11 4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS-240 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 (619)709-5152 | FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711www.dot.ca.gov August 16, 2022 11-SD-125 PM 1.263 Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project MND/SCH#2022090005 Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd. Spring Valley, CA 91978 Dear Ms. Coburn-Boyd: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project (SCH#2022090005) located near State Route 125 (SR-125). The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. Safety is one of Caltrans’ strategic goals. Caltrans strives to make the year 2050 the first year without a single death or serious injury on California’s roads. We are striving for more equitable outcomes for the transportation network’s diverse users. To achieve these ambitious goals, we will pursue meaningful collaboration with our partners. We encourage the implementation of new technologies, innovations, and best practices that will enhance the safety on the transportation network. These pursuits are both ambitious and urgent, and their accomplishment involves a focused departure from the status quo as we continue to institutionalize safety in all our work. Caltrans is committed to prioritizing projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities, to ultimately improve transportation accessibility and quality of life for people in the communities we serve. Caltrans has the following comments: Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd, Environmental Compliance Specialist September 16, 2022 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Hauling The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has discretionary authority with respect to highways under its jurisdiction and may, upon application and if good cause appears, issue a special permit to operate or move a vehicle or combination of vehicles or special mobile equipment of a size or weight of vehicle or load exceeding the maximum limitations specified in the California Vehicle Code. The Caltrans Transportation Permits Issuance Branch is responsible for the issuance of these special transportation permits for oversize/overweight vehicles on the State Highway network. Additional information is provided online at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/permits/index.html If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Sandra Vazquez, LDR Coordinator, at (619) 987-3580 or by e-mail sent to Sandra.Vazquez@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, Maurice A. Eaton MAURICE EATON Branch Chief Local Development Review Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 1-2 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Response to Comment Letter A - California Department of Transportation A‐1 This is an introductory comment. It states that the mission of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. No response is necessary. A‐2 This comment states that Caltrans has discretionary authority over highways under its jurisdiction and provides information regarding permits for oversize/overweight vehicles. This comment is noted. The Final IS/MND, in its list of project permits and approvals, includes this potential Caltrans permit for the transport of heavy construction equipment and/or materials requiring the use of oversized vehicles on state highways A‐3 This comment concludes the letter and provides contact information. No response is necessary. Thank you for commenting. In Reply Refer to: FWS-SD-2022-0090128 October 4, 2022 Sent Electronically Lisa Coburn-Boyd Environmental Compliance Specialist Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, California 91978-2004 Subject: Comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Trestle Bridge Demolition and Water Pipeline Removal Project, Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California Dear Lisa Coburn-Boyd: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department; jointly the Wildlife Agencies), have reviewed Otay Water District’s (OWD) Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Trestle Bridge Demolition Project (Project) in the unincorporated community of Otay Mesa. The comments provided in this letter are based on information provided in the NOI, the Project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND; ICF 2022a), the Project’s Biological Resources Technical Report (BRTR; ICF 2022b), our knowledge of sensitive and declining species and habitats, and our participation in regional conservation planning efforts. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has the legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and threatened and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service also is responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including habitat conservation plans (HCPs) developed under section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; §§ 15386 and 15381, respectively) and is responsible for ensuring appropriate conservation of the State’s biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and other sections of the Fish and Game Code. The Department also administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program, a California regional habitat conservation planning program. The proposed Project would demolish a steel trestle bridge and remove an abandoned 24-inch water pipeline to address liability concerns. Access roads adjacent to the trestle (to the north and southwest) would be extended to support the heavy machinery that would be used to remove the DocuSign Envelope ID: 71E4410A-3C16-4E2C-A805-18E5B18F930A 2 structures. The Project site is in the unincorporated community of Otay Mesa, San Diego County. Surrounding land uses include Lower Otay Lake and open space to the north (Otay Lakes County Park), open space to the east and west, and a local detention center to the south. The Otay River traverses the biological study area (BSA) from east to west and crosses beneath the trestle bridge. The Project is anticipated to begin in mid-September 2023 and finish by mid-January 2024. Project implementation would impact various vegetation communities and sensitive plant species on-site. Enlargement of the access roads would impact approximately 0.36 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.05 acre of non-native grassland, and 0.08 acre of southern willow scrub. Four special-status plant species and two plant species of limited distribution were observed within 50 feet of the proposed Project footprint. Least Bell’s vireo [Vireo bellii pusillus; Act listed Endangered, California Endangered Species Act (CESA) listed Endangered; vireo], Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; Act listed Endangered; Quino), and the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; Act listed Threatened, CDFW Species of Special Concern; gnatcatcher) were observed within the vicinity of the Project area. As a result, all breeding habitat associated with vireo, Quino, and gnatcatcher would be considered occupied during Project implementation. Additionally, the MND indicates that vernal pools containing the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis; fairy shrimp) occur within vernal pool preserves within the vicinity of the proposed Project. To evaluate the potential for fairy shrimp within the BSA, a dry season large-branchiopod survey was performed in 2022 within three road ruts containing potentially suitable fairy shrimp habitat and no cysts were found (ICF 2022a). In 2020, a Project-level bat habitat assessment and survey was conducted to detect sensitive bat species and identify potential roosting sites. Survey results indicated bats were not utilizing the trestle bridge structure or adjacent rocky features (Johnston et al. 2004). We offer the following specific comments and recommendations to assist the Applicant in avoiding, minimizing, and adequately mitigating Project-related impacts to biological resources: 1.Access road improvements associated with Project implementation would directlyremove sensitive habitat, increase edge-effects, and increase the likelihood for invasivespecies dispersal. The draft MND suggests that no mitigation is required to offset impacts because a portion of the proposed Project occurs on a Take Authorized parcel per the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) County of San Diego SubareaPlan. However, the OWD is not a permittee under the MSCP, nor are their activitiescovered; therefore, the reference to MSCP is not relevant unless the OWD intends toprocess their project through the County and request third party beneficiary status. If this is the intent, then the Project should include mitigation consistent with the County of San Diego Biological Mitigation Ordinance to ensure consistency with regionalplanning efforts. 2.Mitigation measure BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 are designed to avoid impacts to Quinoand its habitat through flagging and avoidance of its host plants, finishing Project implementation outside of their flight season, and having a full-time biological monitor DocuSign Envelope ID: 71E4410A-3C16-4E2C-A805-18E5B18F930A 3 on-site throughout construction. Although OWD proposes to minimize impacts to host plants, larvae may be found in areas outside of host plant patches. Therefore, given the proximity of occupied Quino habitat throughout and adjacent to the Project site, destruction of Quino larvae may occur from Project implementation. We recommend OWD contact the Service to discuss potential regulatory approaches to address such impacts consistent with the Act. 3.Mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 from the draft MND aim to prevent impacts tospecial-status plant species through flagging and avoidance of sensitive habitat duringconstruction. However, Figure 4 from the BRTR indicates that special-status plantspecies occur within and adjacent to the potential Project footprint, making complete avoidance infeasible. We recommend that a salvage and translocation plan be developed for sensitive plants if complete avoidance of sensitive species duringconstruction is infeasible. 4.Fairy shrimp are known to occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project. Per theSurvey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (Service 2017), a complete survey consists of both a dry season and wet season survey. Please conduct a wet season survey prior to initiation of construction to have a complete fairy shrimp surveyif pools cannot be avoided to determine if fairy shrimp are present. If the Project mayimpact pools that are occupied by fairy shrimp or affect the watersheds or hydrologyof occupied pools, we recommend OWD contact the Service to discuss potential regulatory approaches to address such impacts consistent with the Act. 5. The BSA for the proposed Project was a 50-foot buffer from the Project footprint.We believe that a 50-foot buffer is not adequate to assess potential indirect effects(i.e., noise) to nearby species from Project impacts. Please increase the BSA to a300-foot buffer for this and future Projects. 6. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a CDFW Fully Protected species [Fish & G. Code, § 3511(b)(12)] was observed and has the potential to nest within the BSA. A FullyProtected species may not be taken at any time and loss of any individual kites, eggs,or nestlings would be considered significant. Mitigation measure BIO-3 aims to avoidimpacts to sensitive nesting birds by scheduling work outside of the migratory bird breeding season (February 15–September 15); however, white-tailed kite and other sensitive raptors may begin nesting within the BSA as early as January 1, which wouldoverlap with the construction timeline. If Project activities occur between January 1 andFebruary 15, we recommend that a qualified biologist conduct a focused survey forwhite-tailed kite nests within the BSA no greater than 15 days prior to the start of construction work (including clearing and grubbing). If white-tailed kite nests are found, the qualified biologist shall develop a species-specific avoidance plan forCDFW review and approval. Any measures approved in the avoidance plan will beimplemented prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. If no active nests arefound during the focused survey, nothing further will be required. If active nests are found during the focused survey, Project personnel shall immediately notify CDFW DocuSign Envelope ID: 71E4410A-3C16-4E2C-A805-18E5B18F930A 4 and establish a minimum 500’ no-work buffer zone until the qualified biologist determines, and CDFW confirms, that all chicks have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest site. If a lapse in Project-related activities of 14 days or longer occurs, another focused survey is required before Project activities can be reinitiated. In addition, please update Figure 5. Special-Status Species Wildlife Biological Resources Letter Report in the final MND to include white-tailed kite as a special-status species occurrence within the BSA. 7. Northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), a CDFW Species of Special Concern wasobserved and has the potential to nest within the BSA. Mitigation measure BIO-3 aimsto avoid impacts to sensitive nesting birds by scheduling work outside of the migratory bird breeding season (February 15–September 15); however, northern harrier may begin nesting within the BSA as early as January 1, which would overlap with theconstruction timeline. If Project activities occur between January 1 and February 15,we recommend that a qualified biologist conduct a focused survey for northern harriernests within the BSA no greater than 5 days prior to the start of construction work (including clearing and grubbing). If active nests are found, we recommend following the MSCP conditions for coverage for northern harrier which includes implementingimpact avoidance areas around active nests. We suggest maintaining a 900-foot bufferfrom construction activities as long as the nest is occupied (eggs, nestlings, etc.); that is,until the young have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest. Other potential nesting raptors should receive similar consideration, although CDFW generally recommends a 500-foot buffer from nests of most other raptor species. 8.The draft MND states that existing structures would be removed by crane and/orhelicopter and no activity would occur within Otay River under the trestle bridge.Please provide clarification of Project measures that would be taken to ensure that no debris falls into the Otay River. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Dimitri Pappas1 (Service) or Alison Kalinowski2 (Department). Sincerely, Jonathan D. Snyder David A. Mayer Assistant Field Supervisor Environmental Program Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1 Dimitri_Pappas@fws.gov 2 Alison.Kalinowski@wildlife.ca.gov JONATHAN SNYDER Digitally signed by JONATHAN SNYDER Date: 2022.10.04 15:51:56 -07'00' DocuSign Envelope ID: 71E4410A-3C16-4E2C-A805-18E5B18F930A 5 LITERATURE CITED [CEQA] California Environmental Quality Act. California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. ICF. 2022a. Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared for the Otay Water District. September. ICF. 2022b. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project. Prepared for the Otay Water District. August. Johnston, D., G. Tatarian, and E. Pierson. 2004. California Bat Mitigation Techniques, Solutions and Effectiveness. [Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. November. DocuSign Envelope ID: 71E4410A-3C16-4E2C-A805-18E5B18F930A 6 Figure 1. Special-Status Plants within the BSA (ICF 2022b). DocuSign Envelope ID: 71E4410A-3C16-4E2C-A805-18E5B18F930A Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 1-3 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Response to Comment Letter B - California Department of Fish and Wildlife; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service B‐1 This comment states that the Project should include mitigation to offset impacts associated with the road improvements because the OWD is not a permittee under the MSCP. The comment suggests that, if the intent is to process the Project through the County, the Project should include mitigation consistent with the County of San Diego Biological Mitigation Ordinance. Thank you for your comment. In both locations in the report where the status of the parcel as "Take Authorized" is mentioned, it is specifically in context that "the Take Authorized designation shows that activities within this parcel do not have an effect on hardline preserve or biological resource core areas." Please note that if the project were processed through the County, the Biological Mitigation Ordinance (BMO) would not apply and no mitigation would be required on the Take Authorized parcel (BMO is only for Metro‐Lakeside‐Jamul segment). The San Diego MSCP has already mitigated for the loss of habitat on this parcel through establishment of hardline preserves, and therefore any credit deductions from the HMA by OWD would be double‐mitigation. B‐2 This comment recommends that, in addition to mitigation measures BIO‐1, BIO‐2, and BIO‐3, OWD contact the Service to discuss potential regulatory approaches to address potential impacts to Quino larvae which may occur outside of host plant patches. OWD respectfully disagrees that there would be impacts on this species. The project would utilize existing access roads which allow access for County, Border Patrol, etc. and which can result in errant impacts on host plants or flying adults year‐round. The project will occur outside of the Quino flight season and will avoid direct impacts to QCB host plants. B‐3 This comment recommends a salvage and translocation plan be developed for sensitive plants if complete avoidance of sensitive species occurring within and adjacent to the potential Project footprint is infeasible. Thank you for your comment, Avoidance and Minimization Measure AMM‐BIO‐5 has been added to include a San Diego barrel cactus salvage plan in event that complete avoidance is infeasible. The measure is based on relevant information from the County of San Diego Guidelines for Cactus Salvage, Attachment C of the County of San Diego Report Formant and Content Guidelines (County of San Diego 2010). Please refer to Avoidance and Minimization Measures AMM‐BIO‐1 and AMM‐BIO‐2 for information regarding how Tecate cypress and singlewhorl burrowbush individuals will be flagged and avoided and therefore transplantation will not be necessary or appropriate. Additionally, AMM‐BIO‐2 also states how San Diego goldenstar populations will be avoided. These are annual species and soil/habitat will not be graded or cleared and therefore soil translocation would not be appropriate or necessary. B‐4 This comment states that, per the Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Brachiopods (Service 2017), a complete survey consists of both a dry season and wet season survey and asks OWD to conduct a wet season survey. The comment recommends that OWD contact the Service to discuss potential regulatory approaches if the Project may impact Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 1-4 November 2022 ICF 198.20 pools that are occupied by fairy shrimp or affect the watersheds or hydrology of occupied pools Please refer to the added text in under “Fairy Shrimp” subsection of the “Special Status Wildlife Species Determined Absent” section of the Biological Resources Letter, which has been included for clarity. OWD respectfully disagrees that additional survey effort is necessary to show absence of this species from 3 small road ruts within existing access roads which will not be graded. These small road ruts were completely surveyed and determined to lack a cyst bank. With no cysts in the soil, it is impossible for adult shrimp to arise during a subsequent wet season survey. B‐5 This comment expresses concern that the 50‐foot buffer is not adequate to assess potential indirect impacts to nearby species from Project impacts and recommends that the BSA be increased to a 300‐foot buffer. The commenter may have misunderstood the Biological Study Area (BSA) buffer. The BSA was 100‐feet from the bridge removal site and 50‐feet from existing access roads. The BSA contains the same vegetation communities as the surrounding habitat (DCSS, riparian forest) and has the same potential to support listed species. OWD believes that the proposed Project timing and mitigation is adequate to address the sensitive species which are presumed to be present in the vicinity. Avoiding construction during nesting season would provide additional minimization for the potential for any indirect noise effects on nesting species. However, OWD will increase study area buffers in future projects. B‐6 This comment states that white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), a CDFW Fully Protected Species, was observed and has the potential to nest within the BSA. The comment recommends that, if Project activities occur between January 1st and February 15th, a qualified biologist conduct a focused survey for white‐tailed kite nests within the BSA no greater than 15 days prior to the start of construction work. If white‐tailed kite nests are found, the qualified biologist shall develop a species‐specific avoidance plan for CDFW review and approval. The comment then recommends that, if active nests are found during the focused survey, Project personnel shall immediately notify CDFW and establish a minimum 500’ no‐work buffer zone until the qualified biologist determines, and CDFW confirms, that all chicks have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest site. If a lapse in Project‐related activities of 14 days or longer occurs, another focused survey is required before Project activities can be reinitiated. Additionally, the comment asks that Figure 5 be updated. This comment has been noted and the suggested measures have been adapted to be applicable to this specific project (please see revised text included in Mitigation Measure BIO‐4). The observation of white‐tailed kite has been added to Figure 5. B‐7 This comment states that norther harrier (Circus hudsonius), a CDFW Species of Special Concern was observed and has the potential to nest within the BSA. The comment recommends that, if Project activities occur between January 1st and February 15th, a qualified biologist conduct a focused survey for northern harrier nests within the BSA no greater than 5 days prior to the start of construction work. If active nests are found, the comment recommends following the MSCP conditions for coverage for northern Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 1-5 November 2022 ICF 198.20 harrier. The comment also suggests maintaining a 900‐foot buffer from construction activities as long as the nest is occupied and recommends that other potential nesting raptors should receive similar consideration. This comment has been noted and the suggested actions have been adapted to be applicable to this specific project (please see revised text included in Mitigation Measure BIO‐4). B‐8 This comment asks for clarification of Project measures that would be taken to ensure that no debris falls into the Otay River during the removal of existing structures by crane and/or helicopter. This comment has been noted and reference to the helicopter has been removed. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO‐6 has been added to provide clarification of the Project measures that would be taken to ensure that no debris falls into the Otay River during the removal of existing structures. Thank you for your comments. o\ÉG o c on+ -+-?-t' t +teo¿oc¡ clL san Diego county Archaeological Soci ety, rnc. ¡. lUâo (r- ta Environmental Review Committee 29 September 2022 Vy'. Royle, Jr., Environmental Review Committee To:Ms. Lisa Coburn-Boyd Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, California 9197 8-2004 Subject:Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Dear Ms. Coburn-Boyd: I have reviewed the subject DMND on behalf of this committee of the San Diego County Archaeological Society. Based on the information contained in the DMND and its cultural resources report, we agree with the impact analysis and the mitigation measures as presented. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the public environmental review process for this project. Sincerely, t cc ICF SDCAS President File -.-J .Ì,' '-}.t å t.¡.1 'i.*: r: -- P.O. Box 81106 San Diego, CA 92138-1106 (B5B) S3B-093S Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 1-6 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Response to Comment Letter C - San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc. C‐1 This comment states that the commenter has reviewed the Draft MND and that the San Diego County Archaeological Society agrees with the analysis and mitigation measures. Thank you for commenting. No response is necessary. Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 2-1 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Chapter 2 Introduction 2.1 Purpose This Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21000 et seq., and associated State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. This IS/MND Checklist includes a description of the proposed project and surrounding land uses, and an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project. The District is the lead agency for the project and would have the principal responsibility for approving the project. The District is the project Applicant and is proposing the project that is analyzed in this IS Checklist. 2.2 Summary of Findings Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist, discusses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and the recommended mitigation program, including mitigation measures that would reduce all potential impacts to levels considered less than significant. According to Section 15370 of the State CEQA Guidelines, mitigation includes the following: (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, and geology, soils and paleontology, and tribal cultural resources, prior to implementation of mitigation measures. Implementation of the mitigation measures, as detailed in each environmental analysis presented in Chapter, would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less‐than‐significant level. 2.3 Outline of Initial Study Checklist This IS Checklist is organized as follows.  Chapter 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the IS Checklist process.  Chapter 2, Project Description, identifies the project location, describes the environmental setting of the project site and vicinity, and discusses the details of the proposed project.  Section 3, Environmental Checklist, analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and includes the following for each of the resource topics: Introduction Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 2-2 November 2022 ICF 198.20  Environmental setting and in‐depth analysis of identified environmental impacts.  Mitigation measures that would reduce potential significant impacts to less‐than‐significant levels. Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 3-1 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Chapter 3 Project Description 3.1 Project Overview The proposed project consists of the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline in the Otay Mesa area. The pipeline was replaced by the Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline in 2001. The trestle also carries an abandoned high‐pressure gas line that supplied the 870‐1 Pump Station which had prevented the trestle from being demolished previously. SDG&E abandoned this gas line in 2017 and replaced it with a feed from the south. The existing water pipeline is no longer in service and the District intends to remove the trestle and pipeline to address liability concerns. 3.2 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses The proposed project’s location in relationship to the surrounding San Diego region is depicted on Figure 3‐1. The proposed project is in the unincorporated community of Otay Mesa, San Diego County. The site is situated approximately 0.5 mile south of the Lower Otay Lake, northwest of the George F. Bailey Detention Facility, and north of the OWD Roll Reservoir. The site is within the Otay Mesa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5‐minute quadrangle map (Figure 3‐2). The proposed project site is about 15 miles southeast of downtown San Diego. Regional access is provided by State Route (SR)‐125 which is approximately 2 miles west of the project site. Dirt roads provide local access. 3.3 Project Description The proposed project consists of the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline in the Otay Mesa area. The pipeline was replaced by the Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline in 2001. The trestle also carries an abandoned high‐pressure gas line that supplied the 870‐1 Pump Station, which had prevented the trestle from being demolished previously. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) abandoned this gas line in 2017 and replaced it with a feed from the south. Since the existing water pipeline is no longer in service, the District intends to remove the trestle and pipeline to address liability concerns. The total length of the pipeline and bridge to be removed is approximately 400 linear feet. The bridge portion over the river is suspended about 40–50 feet above the riverbed and is approximately 170 linear feet of the total length. Demolition of the trestle bridge and water line is anticipated to occur over a 4‐month period. Any construction activities would occur only during the permitted daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. as specified by the County of San Diego municipal code (Section 36.408). Construction of theproposed project would occur in one phase and include the following activities: •Mobilize to site/improve access roads Project Description Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 3-2 November 2022 ICF 198.20 •Cap utilities •Demolish water line and trestle bridge •Removal of material from the siteSouth of the trestle bridge, approximately 900 feet of access road would be improved and widened to 12 feet, for an area of 10,800 square feet (0.25 acre). The first 80 feet of the road would need to be realigned to meet construction vehicle requirements, necessitating clearing and grading work for this segment. North of the trestle bridge, most of the existing roads would be wide enough to accommodate construction equipment. However, approximately 200 feet from the end of the road to the exposed piping would need to be widened to 10 feet, for an area of 2,000 square feet. The work area at the bridge site on the northern and southern sides of the trestle would be approximately 0.25 acre. This acreage does not include staging areas. Three staging areas would be required, one on the northern side of the bridge and two on the southern side, for a total of 0.15 acre. Staging areas would consist of land that is already disturbed. Equipment for construction would include a 90‐ton crane, a Bobcat skid‐steer loader, dump trucks, and a backhoe or excavator (Caterpillar 345C L Hydraulic Excavator or smaller) for demolition and earthwork to prepare the project site. Figure 3-1 Regional Vicinity \\ P D C C I T R D S G I S 1 \ P r o j e c t s _ 1 \ O t a y W a t e r D i s t r i c t \ 0 0 1 9 8 _ 2 0 _ T r e s t l e s _ D e m o l i t i o n \ F i g u r e s \ I S \ F i g 2 _ 1 _ R e g i o n a l . m x d ; U s e r : 3 5 5 2 8 ; D a t e : 1 2 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 0 42 Miles Source: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:250,000[N San Diego County, CA Project Area Mexico Figure 3-2 Project Location \\ P D C C I T R D S G I S 1 \ P r o j e c t s _ 1 \ O t a y W a t e r D i s t r i c t \ 0 0 1 9 8 _ 2 0 _ T r e s t l e s _ D e m o l i t i o n \ F i g u r e s \ I S \ F i g 2 _ 2 _ L o c . m x d ; U s e r : 3 5 5 2 8 ; D a t e : 1 2 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 0 2,0001,000 Feet LegendProject AreaSource: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:24,000[N San Diego County, CA Project Area Mexico Figure 3-3 Existing Zoning \\ P D C C I T R D S G I S 1 \ P r o j e c t s _ 1 \ O t a y W a t e r D i s t r i c t \ 0 0 1 9 8 _ 2 0 _ T r e s t l e s _ D e m o l i t i o n \ F i g u r e s \ I S \ F i g 2 _ 3 _ Z o n i n g . m x d ; U s e r : 3 5 5 2 8 ; D a t e : 1 2 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 0 200100Feet LegendAbandoned WaterlineAbandoned Waterline and Trestle BridgePotential Impact AreaExisting ZoningAgriculturalSpecial PurposePreserved Land Source: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:2,400[N Mexico Figure 3-4 Existing Land Use \\ P D C C I T R D S G I S 1 \ P r o j e c t s _ 1 \ O t a y W a t e r D i s t r i c t \ 0 0 1 9 8 _ 2 0 _ T r e s t l e s _ D e m o l i t i o n \ F i g u r e s \ I S \ F i g 2 _ 4 _ L U . m x d ; U s e r : 3 5 5 2 8 ; D a t e : 1 2 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 0 200100Feet LegendAbandoned WaterlineAbandoned Waterline and Trestle BridgePotential Impact AreaLand UseOpen Space Park or Preserve Source: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:2,400[N Mexico Figure 3-5 Site Plan \\ P D C C I T R D S G I S 1 \ P r o j e c t s _ 1 \ O t a y W a t e r D i s t r i c t \ 0 0 1 9 8 _ 2 0 _ T r e s t l e s _ D e m o l i t i o n \ F i g u r e s \ I S \ F i g 2 _ 5 _ S i t e P l a n . m x d ; U s e r : 3 5 5 2 8 ; D a t e : 1 2 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 0 0 200100Feet LegendAbandoned WaterlineAbandoned Waterline and Trestle BridgeAccess and StagingSource: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:2,400[N San Diego County, CA Mexico Project Description Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 3-8 November 2022 ICF 198.20 3.4 Construction Demolition of the trestle bridge and water line is anticipated to occur over a 4‐month period. Any construction activities would occur only during the permitted daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. as specified by the County of San Diego municipal code (Section 36.408). Construction of theproposed project would occur in one phase and would include the following activities: Mobilize to site/Improve access roads Cap utilities Demolish water line and trestle bridgeSouth of the trestle bridge, approximately 900 feet of access road would be improved and widened to 12 feet, for an area of 10,800 sq ft (0.25 acre). The first 80 feet of the road would need to be realigned to meet construction vehicle requirements, necessitating clearing and grading work for this segment. North of the trestle bridge, most of the existing roads would be wide enough to accommodate construction equipment. However, approximately 200 feet from the end of the road to the exposed piping would need to be widened to 10 feet, for an area of 2,000 sq ft (Figure 3‐5). The work area at the bridge site on the north and south sides of the trestle would be approximately 0.25 acre. This acreage does not include staging areas. Three staging areas would be required, one on the north side of the bridge and two on the south side, for a total of 0.15 acre. Staging areas would consist of land that is already disturbed and clear of vegetation (Figure 3‐5). Equipment for construction would include a 90‐ton crane, a Bobcat skid‐steer loader, dump trucks, and a backhoe or excavator (Caterpillar 345C L Hydraulic Excavator or smaller) for demolition and earthwork to prepare the project site. It is anticipated that construction would begin in mid‐September 2023 and continue over a 4‐month period, ending in mid‐January 2024. 3.5 Operation The proposed project would remove a trestle bridge and abandoned water line. Upon completion of the proposed project, the proposed project area would consist of vacant land. There would be no activities associated with an operational phase. Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-1 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Chapter 4 Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 91978 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ms. Lisa Coburn‐Boyd, (619) 670‐2219 4. Project Location: San Diego County, CA 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Ms. Lisa Coburn‐Boyd, 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard, Spring Valley, CA 91978 6. General Plan Designation: Open Space (Conservation) 7. Zoning: Agricultural, Special Purpose, Preserved Land 8. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline that crosses the Otay River. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses primarily consist of vacant land. The proposed project site is situated approximately 0.5 mile south of the Lower Otay Lake, northwest of the George F. Bailey Detention Facility, and north of the OWD Roll Reservoir. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Consultation between OWD and Native American tribes has occurred and no requests or comments have been received. Environmental Checklist 4.L EnvironmentalFactorsPotentiallyAffected The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this project (i.e., the project would involve at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"), as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ! Aesthetics [l Biological Resources I Geology/Soils/ Paleontological Resources ! Hydrology/Water Quality n Noise n Recreation f] utititiesTServiceSystems ! Agricultural and Forestry Resources X Cultural Resources f] Greenhouse Gas Emissions f] LandUse/Planning fl Population/Housing ! Transportation n wit¿Rre n ei. Quality ! Energy n Hazards and Hazardous Materials ! Mineral Resources n Public Services n tri¡al Cultural Resources ! Mandatory Findings of Signifìcance 4.2 Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: n I nn¿ that the proposed projeæ COULD NOT have a significant effect on tlre environmen! and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I nn¿ that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen! there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. n I Rn¿ that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environmen! and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. n t Rna that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is "potentially signifìcant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. n I nn¿ that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmen! because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. J ;^¿- (-c*ntt:t¡-2nt-1 -Signature Date Printed Name 4-2 For Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project lnitial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final November 2022 tcF 198.20 Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-3 November 2022 ICF 198.20 4.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained if it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less‐than‐Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less‐than‐significant level. (Mitigation measures from Earlier Analyses, as described in #5 below, may be cross‐referenced.) 5. Earlier analyses may be used if, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less‐than‐significant level. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-4 November 2022 ICF 198.20 I. Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? c. In non‐urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The proposed project involves the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline that would no longer be visible once demolition is complete. In addition, no designated scenic vistas have been identified within the project site or vicinity. Therefore, the project would not impact a scenic vista. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? No Impact. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways within the County of San Diego include portions of SR‐52, SR‐75, SR‐78, and SR‐163, none of which are in the vicinity of the project site (Caltrans 2019). The proposed project involves the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned water pipeline that would no longer be visible once the demolition is complete. The project would not result in impacts to trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would occur. c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-5 November 2022 ICF 198.20 publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. Short‐term visual impacts would occur during construction due to grading, demolition, and other demolition‐related activities. However, the project site would be restored to its current condition following removal of the steel trestle and water pipeline. The proposed project site would be vacant following demolition. As such, no substantial visual changes are expected to occur on the project site. Therefore, impacts on the visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area would be less than significant. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project would not create a new permanent source of substantial light or glare. Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures The project is not expected to result in significant impacts on aesthetic resources. No mitigation measures are required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-6 November 2022 ICF 198.20 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts on forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, 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? Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-7 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Discussion a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Less than Significant Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation’s 1984–2018 San Diego County Important Farmland map, the project site is identified as Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation (California Department of Conservation 2020). The project site is currently located on vacant land with a land use designation of “Open Space Park of Preserve” and is zoned for agricultural use (County of San Diego 2011). Although the project site is zoned for agricultural uses, the proposed project would not convert farmland to nonagricultural uses. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non‐agricultural use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Williamson Act applies to parcels consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland or at least 40 acres of land not designated as Prime Farmland. The purpose of the act is to preserve agriculture and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land for use as agricultural or related open space. The project site is classified as “Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation”. In addition, the site is not under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site is not zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with existing zoning for such lands, and no impact would occur. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is not within or near forest land. Accordingly, project construction and operation would not convert forest land to non‐forest use, and no impact would occur. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact. The project would not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures The project is not expected to result in significant impacts on agriculture. No mitigation measures are required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-8 November 2022 ICF 198.20 III. Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. 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? c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is contiguous with San Diego County. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is required, pursuant to the federal and state Clean Air Acts (CAAs), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the county is in nonattainment. The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area for the federal 8‐hour ozone (O3) standard (both the 2015 standard of 0.070 parts per million [ppm]) and the 2008 standard of 0.075 ppm. In addition, the SDAB is classified as a nonattainment area for state O3, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) standards (San Diego Air Pollution Control District 2021; California Air Resources Board 2019). All areas designated as nonattainment are required to prepare plans showing how the area would meet the state and federal air quality standards by its attainment dates. The San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and the region’s portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) are the region’s applicable air quality plans for improving air quality in the region and attaining federal and state air quality standards. The RAQS and SIP rely on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including projected growth in the county, which is based in part on local general plans. Generally, projects that propose development that is consistent with the land use designations and growth anticipated by the local general plan and SANDAG would be consistent with the RAQS and SIP. The County of San Diego Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-9 November 2022 ICF 198.20 General Plan is the governing land use document for physical development within Unincorporated San Diego County, where the proposed project is located. The proposed project consists of demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned water pipeline. Project construction would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rules and Regulations, including Rules 50, 51, and 55, which forbid visible emissions, forbid nuisance activities, and require fugitive dust control measures, respectively. The proposed project would not include any amendments to the existing Zoning Ordinance, increase population, or result in a substantial increase in motor vehicle trips in the project area. Additionally, the proposed project would remain consistent with the existing land use designation as delineated in the County’s general plan. Therefore, because the proposed project is consistent with the uses allowed by the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, the proposed project was anticipated in SANDAG growth projections used in establishing the RAQS and SIP. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plans. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. b. 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? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed under threshold III.a., the project site is in the SDAB, which is classified as a nonattainment area for federally and state‐designated criteria pollutants, including O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short‐term emissions of reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxide (SOX), PM10, and PM2.5. Exhaust emissions would originate from construction equipment, worker vehicle trips, delivery trips, and haul truck trips. Fugitive dust would be generated during material movement, land clearing, and grading activities. Construction‐related emissions would vary substantially depending on the level of activity, the specific construction operations, and wind and precipitation conditions. All emissions would be temporary and would cease once construction is complete. The proposed project is required to comply with SDAPCD rules and regulations, including Rules 50, 51, and 55. Construction is assumed to occur over a 4‐month period. Estimated maximum daily emissions during the construction period are not expected to exceed relevant County or SDAPCD’s thresholds for any criteria pollutant (ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). Additionally, once operational, the proposed project area would be vacant land. There would be no increase in population, and no increase or change in vehicle trips or emission sources long‐term. Therefore, the proposed project would not 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. c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Sensitive receptors are facilities and structures where people live or spend considerable amounts of time, and include retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities. The proposed project site is surrounded by vacant land and is not within proximity of any sensitive receptors. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), which is classified as a carcinogenic toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is the primary pollutant of concern with regard to health Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-10 November 2022 ICF 198.20 risks to sensitive receptors. Diesel‐powered construction equipment as well as any heavy‐duty truck movement would emit DPM that could potentially expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. According to the project schedule, demolition is expected to last 4 months, which is much shorter than the assumed 70‐year exposure period used to estimate lifetime cancer risks, and exposure would be intermittent and infrequent. Once demolition activities have ceased, so too will the source emissions. Once operational, there would be no increase or change in emissions over existing conditions. Given the brief construction schedule and absence of sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations. Impacts related to sensitive receptor exposure to substantial DPM concentrations would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. Project‐related odor emissions would be minimal and would not affect a substantial number of people. During construction activities, emissions from offroad equipment may be evident in the immediate area on a temporary basis. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include material deliveries and hauling heavy‐duty truck trips, which could create an occasional “whiff” of diesel exhaust for nearby receptors. However, these odors would not affect a substantial number of people because the scale of construction would be small and temporary, and the project site is surrounded by vacant land and effectively absent of nearby receptors. Given that there would be no activities associated with operation, there would be no objectionable odors, and no permanent impacts. Therefore, impacts during construction and operation related to other emissions such as odors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to air quality. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-11 November 2022 ICF 198.20 IV. Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Affected Environment A biological resources letter report was prepared for this proposed project (ICF 2022), which describes the environmental setting for the project, provides the methods and results of focused habitat assessments and special‐status species surveys. This document is hereby incorporated by reference. A summary of the affected environment is presented below. The proposed project consists of work areas on the northern and southern sides of the trestle, three staging areas, as well as existing access roads and trails which will be widened in narrow sections to allow for access. The biological study area (BSA) for the proposed project consisted of 1) a 50‐foot buffer (100‐foot survey corridor) along all proposed road improvements, including turn‐around Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-12 November 2022 ICF 198.20 areas; and 2) a 100‐foot buffer (200‐foot survey corridor) of the existing trestle bridge and aboveground pipe sections. An initial site assessment was conducted in 2014. Vegetation mapping, habitat assessment, and rare plant surveys were conducted in the BSA in 2020. A focused bat survey was conducted in August 2020. A focused Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; QCB) habitat assessment and host plant mapping was conducted in March 2022. A protocol‐level dry season survey and analysis was conducted in three road ruts within access roads in 2022; the USFWS survey report is attached to the biological resources letter report (ICF 2022). A total of six vegetation communities and land cover types were mapped within the BSA, including disturbed habitat, Diegan coastal sage scrub, non‐native grassland, southern willow scrub (including restored), eucalyptus woodland, and bedrock. Six California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) plant species were observed within the BSA: San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens; CRPR 2B.1), San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata, CRPR 4.2) San Diego goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii, CRPR 1B.1), small‐flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha, CRPR 4.2), Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii, CRPR 1B.1), and singlewhorl burrobush (Ambrosia monogyra, CRPR 2B.2). QCB are reported within 1 kilometer of the BSA and therefore any suitable habitat will be considered occupied. A detailed mapping of host plants for QCB was conducted and found host plants in and adjacent to the proposed project. Sensitive reptile species, including red‐diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber; California Species of Special Concern [SSC]), Blainville’s horned lizard (Phyrnosoma blanvillii; SSC), and coastal western whiptail (Aspidocelis tigris stejnegeri; SSC), have potential to utilize upland habitats in the BSA. Two‐striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii; SSC) is a primarily aquatic species with high potential to utilize the riparian areas in the Otay River under the trestle bridge in the BSA. Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is a federally and state‐listed endangered migratory songbird which was observed in suitable habitat under the bridge in 2014. No designated critical habitat for least Bell’s vireo exists within the BSA. All riparian habitat under the trestle bridge within the BSA would be considered vireo‐occupied habitat during the breeding season (March 15–September 15, annually). Other SSC summer breeding birds with high potential to utilize the BSA include yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) and yellow‐breasted chat (Icteria virens); suitable habitat within the BSA is considered occupied by yellow warbler and yellow‐breasted chat during the summer. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is a federally threatened and SSC resident songbird closely associated with coastal sage scrub. The BSA contains 4.63 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub suitable as breeding habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. During 2020, three California gnatcatchers were observed within the 4.63 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat observed in the BSA. No designated critical habitat for California gnatcatcher exists within the BSA. San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), a federally‐listed endangered large branchiopods, are known to occur within vernal pool preserves in the vicinity of the BSA. Three road ruts potentially suitable as habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp were observed in these access roads the BSA. The sampled road ruts are shallow and isolated features, which made them unlikely to support fairy shrimp. The sampled ruts were assessed to have low but not discountable potential to support San Diego fairy shrimp prior to sampling because of the extremely shallow topography, but a protogol‐level dry season survey was conducted in 2022 to provide information on potential occupancy. No fairy shrimp cysts were observed in soil samples from any of the three sampled Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-13 November 2022 ICF 198.20 depressions in the BSA during a dry season focused survey in 2022; no cysts of San Diego fairy shrimp or any other large branchiopods were observed (Appendix E of ICF 2022, 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey for Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Pump Station). San Diego fairy shrimp are known from vernal pool preserves in the vicinity and large basins on terraces below, in the Otay River Valley, so the potential for them to occur in ruts in the access roads was not discounted. In the Otay Mesa region, fairy shrimp are frequently found within road ruts because mud carried on vehicles can move cysts and introduce the species into new habitat; there is also some potential for cysts to be moved by waterfowl, shorebirds, or other wildlife. The vernal pool preserves in the vicinity of these two projects are fenced, which vastly reduces potential for vehicular transmission from vernal pools into road ruts within the BSA. The project would not conduct work within any vernal pools or their watersheds or other basins occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp or their watersheds. If Branchinecta cysts had been found within any of the three ruts within the access roads in the BSA, a wet‐season survey would be necessary to determine the species, since the cysts of San Diego and the co‐occurring Lindahl’s fairy shrimp (Branchineca lindahli) are similar in appearance. The extremely small size of these ruts also means that samples were taken from the entirety of the basins and there is no reasonable potential for there to be un‐surveyed parts of the ruts supporting un‐surveyed cyst bank. The absence of any cyst bank in these small features means it is impossible for adult shrimp to arise to be observed in a wet season survey. Because of the lack of cysts in these ruts, the ruts are determined to not support San Diego fairy shrimp. No sensitive bat species were observed within rock features in the BSA during a survey by SDNHM bat biologist Drew Stokes in 2020. Within the BSA, suitable habitat for cave and rock nesting bat species included two fractures in rocks: 1) a large, horizontal fracture (approximately 5‐feet long and 5 feet above the northern end of the structure in the rocky habitat, with a southwestern‐facing aspect; and 2) a large diagonal fracture (with a series of fractures branching from it) at the southern end of the structure in a steep vertical cliff with a northwestern‐facing aspect. Just after sunset, several small bats were observed, identified as canyon bats (Parastrellus hesperus), which are rock‐crevice dwellers that typically roost solitarily, but are sometimes found in small colonies. Using a bat call detector, SDNHM also detected several Mexican free‐tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) and two western small‐footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum). No bats were observed exiting from any of the fractures or rocky habitat near the structure. SDNHM concluded that there were no bat colonies in or directly adjacent to the structure. The Otay River under the BSA is assumed to be a state jurisdictional wetland and has potential to have federally protected wetlands within the riparian area. The trestle pipeline would be removed by crane; no work would be conducted within the Otay River. No vegetation would be removed, and no deposition would occur into any potential wetlands in the Otay River. Because no work would occur in the Otay River, a formal jurisdictional delineation was not considered to be necessary and was not conducted. No other potentially jurisdictional drainages were present in the BSA. Discussion a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-14 November 2022 ICF 198.20 policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Proposed. Sensitive Plant Species. Four special‐status plant species were observed within the BSA: San Diego barrel cactus, San Diego goldenstar, Tecate cypress, and singlewhorl burrobush. The project has potential to affect these CRPR 1 and CRPR 2 species. Impacts on individuals of any of these species would be potentially significant; individual species are discussed below. A few individuals of Tecate cypress and singlewhorl burrobush are present in and adjacent to the potential impact area. Impacts on these large shrubs would be avoided through implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measure (AMM)‐BIO‐1, Biological Preconstruction Survey, and AMM‐BIO‐2, Biological Monitoring (below). Within implementation of these avoidance measures, there would be no impact on these species. Numerous individual San Diego barrel cactus are present in the potential impact area on the northern side of Otay River. These individuals are primarily scattered on bedrock cliffs. Impacts on these cactus would be avoided through implementation of AMM‐BIO‐1, AMM‐BIO‐2, and AMM‐BIO‐5. With implementation of these avoidance measures, there would be no impact on San Diego barrel cactus. Populations of San Diego goldenstar are present in the BSA, adjacent to the potential impact area. Impacts on San Diego goldenstar would be avoided through implementation of AMM‐BIO‐1 and AMM‐BIO‐2. Within implementation of these avoidance measures, there would be no impact on San Diego goldenstar. Two CRPR 4 (species of limited distribution) species were observed within the BSA: San Diego County viguiera and small‐flowered microseris. These species are not considered to meet the definition of endangered or rare under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15380. Because the project is very limited in its extent and the total number of these species that could be affected, any impacts on individuals of these species would not affect the local long‐term survival of the species. Given that San Diego County viguiera and small‐flowered microseris are not considered special‐status species at this location, any impacts on these species would not be an impact on a sensitive species. Special Status Animal Species Riparian Birds. Sensitive neotropical migrant riparian bird species, including least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow‐breasted chat, have potential to utilize habitat under the proposed project as breeding habitat. Impacts on suitable habitat would be a significant impact on these species. The project is designed to work from a crane from the canyon sides and would not enter or affect the sensitive riparian habitat in the Otay River below. Measure AMM‐6 would be implemented to ensure that construction work would not result in impacts to habitat under the bridge. This aspect of the project would have no impact on riparian bird habitat. The disturbed pull‐out at the southwestern end of the potential impact area was mapped as southern willow scrub–restoration but is primarily vegetated with small goldenbush and is not currently suitable breeding habitat for riparian birds. This area will be used for temporary staging of equipment; it will not be graded and vegetation would not be removed. Because this area is not yet habitat for riparian birds, the project would not result in an impact on suitable breeding habitat Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-15 November 2022 ICF 198.20 for riparian bird species and any direct impacts on vegetation in this area would have no impact on riparian birds. Work adjacent to or over riparian habitat in the Otay River during the breeding season could result in noise and other indirect disturbance impacts on the breeding success of sensitive riparian bird species through disturbance of activity patterns, stress, and distraction, which could lead to reduced nesting success or mortality by predation. These indirect effects, if they occurred during the breeding season would be a potentially significant impact on breeding riparian birds. AMM‐BIO‐3, Project Timing, ensures that project activities would not occur during the breeding season. Therefore, the project would have no impact on riparian bird species Coastal California gnatcatcher has been observed within suitable habitat within the BSA and is assumed to occupy the 4.63 acre of Diegan coastal scrub present in the BSA. The project has the potential to temporarily disturb up to 0.36 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat on roadside access roads, determined by overlaying the potential impact area over the mapped vegetation communities. The actual temporary impacts may be less than this, because of the imprecision in comparing proposed work areas to vegetation communities mapped on air photos. Any impacts on roadside vegetation would be reduced through implementation of AMM‐BIO‐2, which would ensure that shrub impacts are minimized. Project activities during the breeding season could result in direct or indirect effects on nesting coastal California gnatcatcher and would be a potentially significant impact. However, the project is designed to avoid activities during the breeding season. AMM‐BIO‐3, Project Timing, ensures that the project would not occur during the breeding season. Therefore, the project would have no impact on coastal California gnatcatcher. The project does not anticipate any impacts on coastal California gnatcatcher based on the project avoidance and minimization measures. However, should any impacts occur to coastal sage scrub habitat during the project, as determined by the project biologist, the impacts will be mitigated as described in MM‐BIO‐1. With implementation of AMM‐BIO‐2 and AMM‐BIO‐3, the project would have no impact on coastal California gnatcatcher. Raptors. Sensitive raptor species, including white‐tailed kite and northern harrier, have potential to nest within the BSA. The project was designed to be conducted within the winter to avoid any project‐related direct or indirect impacts on sensitive raptor species. Additionally, AMM‐BIO‐3 ensures that the project would not occur during the breeding season. Therefore, the project would have no impact on raptor species. Sensitive reptile species, including red‐diamond rattlesnake, coast horned lizard, and coastal western whiptail, have potential to utilize the BSA. The project would have limited temporary impacts on habitat for these species; disturbance of roadside vegetation would be a less than significant impact. Direct impacts on individuals of these species would be a significant impact. Implementation of AMM‐BIO‐1 and AMM‐BIO‐2 would ensure that the project does not have direct impact on these species. Two‐striped gartersnake has high potential to utilize the Otay River in the BSA under the trestle bridge. Removal of the trestle bridge would have no impact on riparian habitat in the Otay River; therefore, the project would have no impact on two‐striped gartersnake. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-16 November 2022 ICF 198.20 QCB is known from the vicinity of the BSA, and all populations of host plants would be considered occupied habitat. Construction of the project during the flight season in proximity to occupied habitat would have potential to affect adult QCB. Implementation of AMM‐BIO‐3 would ensure that the project would not occur during the flight season of QCB and would have no impact on flying adult species. The project has potential to affect QCB host plants potentially occupied by larval QCB. Impacts on occupied larval host plants would be a potentially significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of AMM‐BIO‐1, AMM‐BIO‐2, and AMM‐BIO‐3 would ensure the avoidance of potential impacts on QCB and would therefore have no effect on QCB. Bats. A focused habitat assessment and survey for bat species conducted by SDNHM bat biologists in 2020 determined that sensitive bat species were absent from the BSA and that no bat species were utilizing the trestle bridge. Because of bat species absence, the project would have no effect on sensitive bat species. Fairy Shrimp. A protocol‐level, dry‐season survey was conducted in 2022 by an ICF fairy shrimp biologist in three small road ruts in the BSA. These road ruts were initially assessed to be marginal suitability, and the dry‐season soil analysis determined that no fairy shrimp cysts were present in the ruts. Because fairy shrimp are absent from the BSA, and the proposed project would have no impacts on the watersheds of any vernal pools, the proposed project would have no impact on listed fairy shrimp. Avoidance and Minimization Measures AMM-BIO-1: Biological Preconstruction Survey. Due to the presence of Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) host plants and rare plants in the potential impact area, the shoulders of the dirt roads and proposed off‐road traverses will be inspected for presence of QCB host plants within 7 days prior to construction. QCB host plants known from the site include dot‐seed plantain, purple owl’s clover, and purple Chinese houses. Populations of host plants mapped in March 2022 and any newly observed host plants present along road shoulders shall be flagged for avoidance with staking and flagging. If any host plants are present within the proposed off‐road travel paths, then the population shall be flagged and shall be avoided; no machinery shall drive over host plant locations at any time of year. AMM-BIO-2: Biological Monitoring. Due to the presence of Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) and its host plants, California gnatcatcher, and sensitive plants in the vicinity of the site, a biological monitor will be onsite full‐time during project activities. The Biological Monitor will ensure that equipment is constrained to existing disturbed road and pads to the maximum extent practicable and will avoid flagged sensitive resources. The Biologist will sweep ahead of equipment to ensure that no sensitive reptiles or mammals are affected by vehicle movements. The biologist will ensure that project activities do not affect any QCB host plants, Tecate cypress, singlewhorl burrobush, San Diego barrel cactus, or San Diego goldenstar. AMM-BIO-3: Project Timing. Sensitive neotropical migrant bird species utilize riparian habitat around the project during the summer, and sensitive resident bird species will breed in the surrounding open space during the breeding season. Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) have potential to fly from late February to early May. To avoid any potential impacts on federally listed QCB and listed and sensitive bird species, all work will be conducted within the period of September 15 to February 15. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-17 November 2022 ICF 198.20 AMM-BIO-4: Project Timing – Raptor Nesting. White‐tailed kite, northern harrier, and other sensitive raptors may begin nesting as early as January 1, which could overlap with the construction timeline. If Project activities occur between January 1 and February 15, OWD will employ a qualified biologist to conduct a focused survey for white‐tailed kite nests within 300‐feet of the project site no greater than 15 days prior to the start of construction work. If white‐tailed kite nests are found, the qualified biologist shall develop a species‐specific avoidance plan for CDFW review and approval. Any measures approved in the avoidance plan will be implemented prior to the start of construction. If no active nests are found during the focused survey, nothing further will be required. If active nests are found during the focused survey, Project personnel shall immediately notify CDFW and establish a minimum 500’ no‐work buffer zone until the qualified biologist determines, and CDFW confirms, that all chicks have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest site. If a lapse in Project‐related activities of 14 days or longer occurs, another focused survey is required before Project activities can be reinitiated. AMM-BIO-5. San Diego Barrel Cactus Salvage. San Diego barrel cactus present within the BSA shall be avoided as described in AMM‐BIO‐2. If there are no practicable way to avoid SDBC within the project area, barrel cactus shall be salvaged by the project biologist and transplanted to a suitable receptor site at the San Miguel Habitat Management Area (HMA). Project biologist will mark the north side of each cactus salvaged so it can be planted in the same orientation in which it was growing at the project site. Plants may be stored in cool, dry conditions for a short time or taken directed to the HMA. AMM-BIO-6. Site Environmental Controls. Otay Water District will ensure that contractors will implement standard temporary environmental controls at the work area to prevent damage to sensitive southern willow scrub vegetation below the bridge. Contractor shall prevent bridge pieces and debris from falling into the river through the use of controls such as large tight‐weave nets, or fabric or plastic sheeting, wrapped under the bridge to catch debris. Worksite shall be maintained free of trash and debris. b. 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact. The project proposes to remove hard structures from open space and would have no permanent development footprint. The project would have no ongoing operations impacts. Therefore, the project would have no permanent impacts on sensitive natural communities. The project would have potential for temporary disturbance on sensitive vegetation communities on roadsides and in existing disturbed roadside areas. Sensitive vegetation within the mapped potential impact area includes 0.36 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.05 acre of non‐native grassland, and 0.08 acre of southern willow scrub (revegetation area) (Table 1). Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-18 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Table 1. Vegetation Communities within the Potential Impact Area Oberbauer Code Vegetation Community Name Project Impacts (acres) 11300 Disturbed Habitat 0.45 32500 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub† 0.36 42200 Non‐Native Grassland† 0.05 63320 Southern Willow Scrub (restoration)† 0.08 79100 Eucalyptus Woodland 0.04 N/A Bedrock 0.03 Total 0.99 †= sensitive vegetation community The actual temporary impacts may be less than the values in Table 2 due to the imprecision in comparing proposed work areas to vegetation communities mapped on air photos. Impacts on roadside vegetation would be reduced through implementation of AMM‐BIO‐2, which would ensure that equipment is constrained to existing disturbed road and pads to the maximum extent. Temporary impacts on up to 0.36 acre of roadside Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat would be mitigated through credit deduction from the San Miguel Habitat Management Area as described in MM‐BIO‐1. Any temporary roadside impacts will be revegetated after completion of bridge removal, as detailed in MM‐BIO‐2. Compensatory mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation proposed. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1: Compensatory Habitat Mitigation. Temporary impacts on up to 0.36 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, which is a sensitive vegetation community to CDFW, would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio through credit deduction from the San Miguel Habitat Management Area. MM-BIO-2: Post-Construction Revegetation. Temporarily disturbed areas would be revegetated to reduce impacts on surrounding vegetation communities and limit expansion of existing access roads. At the completion of bridge removal, the laydown areas and access roads shall be completely cleared of debris and all detectable foreign matter. Reseeding of disturbed native habitat, and if necessary, replanting, must be completed according to the specifications and plans. Reseeding must be designed to assure that construction and subsequent long‐term operations do not significantly affect nearby sage scrub, wetland habitats, or habitats containing sensitive species through erosion, siltation, or dusting. Specifications and plans will include provisions for the seeding and/or planting of work areas and any edges of the access roads which were disturbed. Seeding and/or planting would involve only appropriate native plant species similar in composition to the adjacent undisturbed vegetation communities. The qualified biologist shall monitor these activities to ensure nonnative or invasive plant species are not used in the seed mix or planting palettes. No fertilizers or pesticides would be used in the seeded/planted areas. All planting stock would be inspected for exotic invertebrate pests (e.g., argentine ants) and use of any stock found to be infested with such pests would not be allowed in the seeded/planted areas. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-19 November 2022 ICF 198.20 c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. The trestle bridge spans the Otay River, which is potentially jurisdictional to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, and which has potential to contain state and federal wetlands. Trestle bridge demolition would be conducted entirely by crane and would not affect the Otay River below. Therefore, the project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than significant impact. The trestle bridge spans the Otay River, which may serve as a wildlife corridor for native species. The proposed project would not have any direct temporary impacts on habitat within the riparian corridor and would have no permanent impacts. The project would remove a developed structure from the otherwise‐undeveloped vicinity and would have no continued operations after removal. Construction work on the project would only be conducted during daytime hours and would have limited temporary impacts on what would be primarily nocturnal movements within the Otay River and surrounding uplands. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on wildlife movement. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. No local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would apply to this project. Therefore, the project would have no impact on local policies or ordinances. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project does not conflict with the provisions of any habitat conservation plans. The project is located within the limits of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan County Subarea Plan (‘South County’ Plan) South County Segment. The trestle removal site and most of the access roads are located within APN 6441001900, which is owned by County of San Diego and managed as part of the County Lakes Regional Park. APN 6441001900 was designated in the County Subarea Plan as a “Take Authorized” parcel. This designation is for lands whose impacts were mitigated with the establishment of Hardline Preserves in South County Segment, and for which no additional mitigation is required for impacts to covered species or their habitats. While OWD is not signatory to the MSCP and activities conducted by OWD are not covered activities under the MSCP, the Take Authorized designation shows that activities within this parcel do not have an effect on hardline preserve or biological resource core areas of an approved HCP/NCCP. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-20 November 2022 ICF 198.20 V. Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Discussion a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? No impact. No historical resources have been identified within the project site. On June 18, 2021, ICF conducted a pedestrian survey and inventory of the project area. The survey included an evaluation of the trestle structure due to its age over fifty years old (built between 1954 and 1963). The trestle structure was examined and documented at the north and south ends and the section spanning the canyon was not surveyed due to safety concerns and inability to access. The survey and evaluation determined neither the bridge nor the pipeline would be eligible for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 1, 2, or 31, or Criterion D. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The impact would be less than significant. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Potentially Significant Impact. A cultural resources records search for the project identified one archaeological site, a prehistoric lithic scatter within the project area. On June 18, 2021, ICF conducted a pedestrian survey and inventory of the project area. The survey did not identify any new archaeological resources and did not relocate the existing archaeological site in the project area. The previously recorded site intersects with the southern part of the project area and was surveyed around its intersection with the project area. No cultural materials associated with the site were identified. Road construction and the construction of the detention facility appear to have destroyed the site. The site appears to have been an expedient tool making or cobble testing site in conjunction with the location on a mesa type, subsurface deposits are unlikely to be associated with the resource. The site is not recommended eligible for the CRHR under Criterion D. However, although no cultural resources were observed, it is possible there are deposits present in the subsurface that could be exposed by ground‐disturbing activities occurring as part of the proposed demolition. Therefore, due to the presence of a previously recorded site and the proposed ground‐disturbing activities, a significant impact to an archaeological resource could occur. To reduce the potentially significant impact, mitigation measures MM‐CUL‐1, MM‐CUL‐2, and MM‐CUL‐3, as Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-21 November 2022 ICF 198.20 described below, would be implemented during the project. These mitigation measures are consistent with mitigation measures required in the Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR (OWD 2016). These mitigation measures would require additional cultural resource survey if the project boundaries change to include areas that were not surveyed for the project, and would require archeologist and Native American monitoring during grading activity. If archaeological resources are discovered during ground‐disturbing activities, the mitigation measures would require the contractor to direct work away from the location of the discovery, and either avoidance of the resource, reduction in ground‐disturbing activities, or recovery of the archaeological resource. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be reduced to less than significant. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not a formal cemetery and is not located near a formal cemetery. There are no known instances of human remains being identified in the project area, and the site is not known to be on a burial ground. Implementation of the proposed project would involve ground disturbance in an area that has previously been disturbed. Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project would disturb any human remains during proposed project activities. Should human remains be uncovered during construction, as specified by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance would occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, excavation or construction would halt in the area of the discovery, the area would be protected, and consultation and treatment would occur as prescribed by law. If the County Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she would contact the Native American Heritage Commission, who would appoint the Most Likely Descendant. Additionally, if the remains are determined to be Native American, a plan would be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects. As required by PRC 5097.98, the plan would be implemented in coordination with the Most Likely Descendant. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would potentially result in significant impacts related to cultural resources. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented. MM-CUL-1: Survey Additional Project Area if Project Boundary Changes. If the boundary of the project area were to change during project design or implementation, any additional areas that were not previously surveyed during the initial project pedestrian survey and evaluation shall be surveyed by a qualified archaeologist. MM-CUL-2: Archaeologist and Native American Monitoring during Grading Activities. Prior to grading, 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. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-22 November 2022 ICF 198.20 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. MM-CUL-3: Resource Management. 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. 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. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-23 November 2022 ICF 198.20 VI.Energy Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a.Result in potentially significant environmentalimpact due to wasteful, inefficient, orunnecessary consumption of energy resources,during project construction or operation?b.Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan forrenewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion a.Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Energy resources include electricity, natural gas, transportation fuel, and other fuel and energy sources. During demolition, there would be a temporary consumption of energy resources required in the form of fuels to power heavy‐duty construction equipment, material delivery and haul vehicles, as well as construction worker commuting. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations would reduce short‐term energy demand during the project’s demolition to the extent feasible. Demand for fuel during construction would have no noticeable effect on peak or baseline demands for energy. Thus, the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy that could result in potentially significant environmental effects use. The proposed project does not have an operational phase that would result in energy use. Thus, the project would not result in impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction (demolition) or operation. Energy impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b.Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. State and local agencies regulate the use and consumption of energy through various methods and programs. As a result of the passage of AB 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32, both of which seek to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through various measures, including but not limited to renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures. Demolition activities associated with the proposed project would be required to be in accordance with County and state requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans, and impacts would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-24 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to energy. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-25 November 2022 ICF 198.20 VII. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological ResourcesPotentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a.Directly or indirectly cause potential substantialadverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving:1.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, asdelineated on the most recent Alquist‐PrioloEarthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by theState Geologist for the area or based on othersubstantial evidence of a known fault? Referto Division of Mines and Geology SpecialPublication 42.2.Strong seismic ground shaking?3.Seismic‐related ground failure, includingliquefaction?4.Landslides?b.Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss oftopsoil?c.Be located on a geologic unit or soil that isunstable or that would become unstable as aresult of the project and potentially result in anonsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?d.Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial direct or indirect risks to lifeor property?e.Have soils incapable of adequately supporting theuse of septic tanks or alternative wastewaterdisposal systems in areas where sewers are notavailable for the disposal of wastewater?f.Directly or indirectly destroy a uniquepaleontological resource or site or uniquegeologic feature? Discussion a.1. Directly or indirectly cause 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 Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-26 November 2022 ICF 198.20 based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than Significant Impact. The project site is in a known seismically active region where several known earthquake faults occur. While the potential for ground rupture due to faulting at the site is considered low, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of a nearby seismic event is possible. However, demolition activities will be temporary and operation of the proposed project does not include any habitable structures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a.2. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. The primary seismic hazard for the project site, as with most of the southern California region, is the susceptibility to ground shaking due to the presence of major active or potentially active faults in the region. The proposed project involves the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline and would not include an operational phase; nor would it include construction of any habitable structure. As such, the proposed project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant. a.3. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. Potential secondary seismic effects of strong seismic ground shaking include liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismically induced settlement/differential compaction. Liquefaction is defined as a loss of strength of saturated, cohesionless soil generally due to seismic shaking. Soil types most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated silty to clean fine sands. The project site is not mapped within a liquefaction hazard (County of San Diego 2011). Therefore, the potential for hazards from liquefaction and subsequent lateral spreading on this site would be negligible. Seismically induced settlement consists of dry dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and liquefaction‐induced settlement (below groundwater). During a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose to moderately dense sandy soil due to reduction in volume during, and shortly after, an earthquake event. Some seismically induced settlement may occur within the onsite younger sandy alluvial soils. However, compliance with all applicable building codes and standards would reduce project impacts to levels that are less than significant. a.4. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. Several formations within the San Diego region are particularly prone to landsliding. These formations generally have high clay content and mobilize when they become saturated with water. Other factors, such as steeply dipping bedding that project out of the face of the slope and/or the presence of fracture planes, will also increase the potential for landsliding. No landslides or indications of deep‐seated landsliding are present at the project site. The project site is generally underlain by favorable oriented geologic structure, consisting of gravel‐cobble conglomerate. Therefore, the potential for significant landslides or large‐scale slope instability at the project sites is considered low. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-27 November 2022 ICF 198.20 b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Soil erosion and the loss of topsoil could occur during grading and demolition associated with the proposed project. The potential impacts of soil erosion on the project site would be minimal with the implementation of OWD’s standard construction BMP requirements, which would include standard erosion control BMPs. As such, the impact on soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. Three soil types, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are mapped within the proposed project (Bowman 1973, NRCS 2013). These include San Miguel‐Exchequer rocky silt loams (9 to 70% slopes), Huerhuero, Riverwash, and Terrace escarpments:  San Miguel‐Exchequer rocky silt loams is about 50% San Miguel silt loam and 40% Exchequer silt loam. Soils in the San Miguel series consist of well‐drained shallow to moderately deep silt loams that have a clay subsoil. Soils in the Exchequer series consist of shallow and very shallow, well‐drained silt loams. San Miguel‐Exchequer complex occurs on mountainous uplands. In the project area, this soil type occurs north of the Otay River and in the southeastern portion of the project area.  Huerhuero loams are moderately well drained soils with a clay subsoil, developed from sandy marine sediments. They occur from 10 to 400 feet AMSL on marine terraces.  Riverwash typically occurs in intermittent stream channels. The material is typically sandy, gravelly, or cobbly. In the project area, this soil type occurs in association with the Otay River and its banks.  Terrace escarpments consists of steep to very steep escarpments and escarpment‐like landscapes. The terrace escarpments typically occur on the nearly even fronts of terraces or alluvial fans. Project site soils are composed of soils consisting of silty to clayey sands with variable amounts of scattered gravel and some cobble. As discussed above, the project site is not located within an area mapped as a landslide or liquefaction hazard zone. As lateral spreading occurs when there are liquefiable soils, lateral spreading is also not anticipated to occur within the project site. As a result, the underlying geologic structure of the project site would not become unstable as a result of the project, resulting in an on‐ or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are fine‐grained soils (generally high‐plasticity clays) that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content and a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. Changes in the water content of an expansive soil can result in severe distress to structures constructed upon the soil. The project would require soil disturbance; however, because of the proposed project does not involve the operation of any structures located on expansive soils, the potential for the proposed project to result in direct or Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-28 November 2022 ICF 198.20 indirect risks to life or property at the project site is considered low. Demolition activities associated with the proposed project would comply with the requirements of Section 8.21.130 of the California Building Code, which addresses expansive soils. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to inadequate soils for supporting septic systems. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the project. Thus, the onsite soils would not pose limitations to septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems because none are proposed as part of the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Paleontological sensitivity in the project area is marginal to high (County of San Diego 2011). Any ground disturbance that extends to undisturbed deposits of the formation has the potential to cause significant and adverse impacts on the paleontological resources preserved within the Otay Formation deposit. The proposed project would include excavation of no more than 5 feet below ground surface, which would potentially destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature if it were to extend through the undocumented fill and into the formation. Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1: If it is determined that excavation would extend below the artificial fill, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project proponent prior to excavations reaching 10 feet in depth or greater. The qualified paleontologist shall develop and execute a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) and supervise a paleontological monitor who shall monitor all ground‐disturbing activities associated with such excavations. The PRMMP would outline the procedures to follow with respect to paleontological resources (e.g., monitoring protocols, curation, data recovery of fossils, reporting). If fossils are found during such excavation, the paleontological monitor shall be authorized to halt ground‐disturbing activities within 25 feet of the find in order to allow evaluation of the find and determination of appropriate treatment according to the PRMMP. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-29 November 2022 ICF 198.20 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The primary anticipated GHG emissions are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluoridated compounds. AB 32 sets forth the regulatory framework in California to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 builds on AB 32 and establishes a longer‐term goal of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Unlike criteria pollutants, which are primarily pollutants of regional and local concern, GHGs are a global problem. Therefore, GHG impacts and the analysis contained herein are inherently cumulative. The State CEQA Guidelines do not indicate what amount of GHG emissions would constitute a significant impact on the environment. Instead, they authorize the lead agency to consider thresholds of significance that were 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 (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4(a) and 15064.7(c)). The courts have since confirmed that there are multiple potential pathways for evaluating project‐level GHG emissions consistent with CEQA, depending on the circumstances of a given project. These potential pathways include reliance on a business‐as‐usual model, numeric thresholds, and compliance with regulatory emissions reduction plans and programs. Proposed project construction activities would contribute GHG emissions as a result of off‐road diesel equipment exhaust and emissions from construction employee and any haul truck travel needed to dispose of materials off site over the construction period. Construction activities would be minimal, and sources of emissions would cease once construction is completed. Once the proposed project is constructed, no operational GHG emissions are anticipated to occur since the project only involves the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline. As such, construction and operational GHG emissions are not expected to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-30 November 2022 ICF 198.20 b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. The District has not adopted a plan for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The County of San Diego adopted their CAP in February 2018, which outlined strategies and measures to reduce the County’s contribution to GHG emissions and to meet the state’s 2020 and 2030 emissions targets, as well as ensure progress towards the state’s 2050 reduction goal contains emissions reduction targets of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. To reach these targets, the CAP includes measures and strategies related to energy, transportation and land use, water, solid waste, and infrastructure (County of San Diego 2018). However, in 2020, the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors voted to set aside the approval of the 2018 CAP because a portion of the Supplemental EIR was found to be out of compliance with CEQA and is currently being updated. Although the CAP is being revised, the court did not find fault with the 26 GHG reduction measures (County of San Diego 2021). CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan outlines the framework and strategies the state will take to achieve its 2030 emission reduction targets. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update proposes to meet the 2030 goal by accelerating the focus on zero and near‐zero technologies for moving freight, continued investment in renewables, greater use of low‐carbon fuels including electricity and hydrogen, stronger efforts to reduce emissions of short‐lived climate pollutants (e.g., those resulting from wastewater and landfill practices), further efforts to create walkable communities with expanded mass transit and other alternatives to traveling by car, continuing the cap‐and‐trade program, and ensuring that natural lands become carbon sinks to provide additional emissions reductions and flexibility in meeting the target (CARB 2017). As discussed previously, project‐related GHG emissions would be minimal and would be limited to the brief construction period. Removal of the trestle bridge and water line will result in no operational changes. Thus, the proposed project is not expected to result in any new vehicle trip generation, energy or utility consumption, or waste generation. Therefore, given the minimal GHG emissions expected during construction and absence of operational activities, the proposed project would neither conflict with implementation of SB 32, nor impede state progress toward meeting the long‐range reduction target identified in EO S‐3‐05. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-31 November 2022 ICF 198.20 IX.Hazards and Hazardous MaterialsPotentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a.Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials?b.Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through reasonably foreseeableupset and accident conditions involving therelease of hazardous materials into theenvironment?c.Emit hazardous emissions or involve handlinghazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile ofan existing or proposed school?d.Be located on a site that is included on a list ofhazardous materials sites compiled pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65962.5 and, as aresult, would it create a significant hazard to thepublic or the environment?e.Be located within an airport land use plan areaor, where such a plan has not been adopted, bewithin two miles of a public airport or public useairport, and result in a safety hazard or excessivenoise for people residing or working in theproject area?f.Impair implementation of or physically interferewith an adopted emergency response plan oremergency evacuation plan?g.Expose people or structures, either directly orindirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, ordeath involving wildland fires? Discussion a.Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. Project demolition would require the use of materials that are typically associated with construction activities, such as diesel fuels, hydraulic liquids, oils, solvents, and paints. Any potentially hazardous materials found on site would be removed in accordance with state and federal regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials. The proposed project would not involve any operational activities. As such, generation of hazardous materials or hazardous waste would not occur. As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-32 November 2022 ICF 198.20 conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Therefore, construction and operational impacts for these issues would be less than significant. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Demolition would require the use of typical materials associated with construction activities such as diesel fuels, hydraulic liquids, oils, and solvents, which would be used in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations. The proposed project would remove a trestle bridge and abandoned water line and there would be no activities associated with operation which would require the use of hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste. As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant. c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not occur within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The closest school is High Tech High School, Chula Vista And High Tech Elementary School, Chula Vista located approximately 1.7 miles northeast of the project site. As discussed above, the project would not lead to hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, other than limited use of common hazardous materials during construction in accordance with applicable regulations. Therefore, impacts on nearby schools would not occur. d. 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? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code (DTSC 2020). Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to its location on a site that was included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is approximately 2.7 miles northeast of Brown Field Municipal Airport. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline that crosses the Otay River. Once removed, the proposed project area would consist of vacant land and no activities associated with operation would occur. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or any other applicable rules and regulations as they pertain to airports and airport safety (ALUC 2014). The proposed project would not create residences or other land uses that would be sensitive to aircraft noise. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; no impact would occur. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-33 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Demolition activities would require the temporary use of a crane to remove the trestle bridge, which would temporarily add a new structure to the airspace. As a result and because the project site falls within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Height Notification Area, FAA review is required for the proposed project. Prior to demolition, FAA must be notified of the proposed structures that would exceed height limits or that would interfere with navigational aids within the project area. According to the FAA Notice Criteria Tool webpage, the proposed project is “in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception.” As a result, FAA requires the filing of Form 7460‐1 for the proposed project at least 45 days prior to implementation of the proposed project. A Form 7460‐1s was filed on behalf of the District for the temporary use of a crane (Aeronautical Study No. 2020‐AWP‐12611‐OE). The FAA reviewed the submittal and issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for Temporary Structure letter on August 31, 2021, which indicates the proposed project would not interfere with air navigation. Thus, the proposed project would not result in safety hazards related to interference with airspace navigation. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Emergency management services are overseen by San Diego County Fire, which responds to emergencies and provides fire protection, fire prevention services, emergency medical services, and community emergency preparedness. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur in an undeveloped area and would not restrict access for emergency vehicles. After construction of the proposed project, emergency access would remain the same as existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant Impact. The County of San Diego is subject to both wildland and urban fires because of its climate, topography, and native vegetation. Extended drought, characteristic of the region’s Mediterranean climate and increasingly severe dry periods associated with global warming, has resulted in large areas of dry native vegetation that provide fuel for wildland fires. State law requires all local jurisdictions to identify any Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within their areas of responsibility (California Government Code Sections 51175–51189). Inclusion within these zones is based on vegetation density, slope severity, and other relevant factors that contribute to fire severity. The project site is within an area that has been identified as a VHFHSZ wildland fire hazard area (CALFIRE 2020). The project site would be adjacent to native fuels that could exacerbate fire risk. The proposed project would involve demolition, during which the use of construction equipment and materials that may cause sparks could increase the risk of the ignition or spread of wildfire. However, the use of such equipment would be temporary, and would be required to follow all fire‐prevention protocols that are standard practice for the prevention of wildfire. The District would require the contractor to develop and implement a wildfire prevention plan during the demolition process. Operation of the proposed project would not introduce any new use that would exacerbate existing wildfire risks and would not include the installation or maintenance of infrastructure (such Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-34 November 2022 ICF 198.20 as road, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or other utilities) that may exacerbate a fire risk. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires, and the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-35 November 2022 ICF 198.20 X. Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would: 1. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 2. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site; 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; or 4. Impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Discussion a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Less than Significant Impact. The project is not expected to use any form of wastewater or generate any wastewater or hazardous waste during construction. However, equipment used during construction would contain hazardous materials such as hydraulic oil, diesel fuel, and other products contained within construction vehicles and equipment. Therefore, impacts on water quality would be less than significant. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-36 November 2022 ICF 198.20 b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not propose to use groundwater during construction or operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. c.1. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would: Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in grading activities but would not substantially increase impervious surfaces or alter the existing drainage patterns in a way that would result in substantial erosion or siltation. Therefore, a less‐than‐significant impact would occur. c.2. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would: Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? Less than Significant Impact. Grading and ground disturbance associated with demolition of the proposed project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces. Grading activities would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c.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 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would: 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and, therefore, would not result in an increase in the rate or amount of stormwater runoff from the site. As such, the proposed project would not 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c.4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would: Impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project site is not located within a floodplain. The project site is not located downstream of a dam or within a dam inundation area. As such, the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The project site is located approximately 10 miles east of the nearest coastline and is outside the tsunami inundation areas along the coast. The nearest enclosed body of water is Lower Otay Lake, which is located 0.5 mile north of the project site. The site is not located within a tsunami Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 4-37 November 2022 ICF 198.20 inundation area. Due to the distance of all enclosed bodies of water, no seiche‐related flooding is anticipated to occur at the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to flood‐hazard, seiche, or tsunami would occur. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area, within the Otay Hydrologic Unit (910.00) and is subject to the applicable requirements of the Basin Plan administered by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board in accordance with the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The project would include LID measures and BMPs for drainage control that would be consistent with the Basin Plan. Water use for demolition of the proposed project would be minimal and would be supplied by Otay Water District. As no water use would be required during operation of the proposed project, the project would not significantly deplete groundwater supplies. Additionally, minimal new impervious surface would be created as part of the project, resulting in minimal effects on groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the groundwater management of the area. and potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-38 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XI. Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion a. Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project would occur on primarily vacant land that is not within an established community. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not divide an established community, and no impact would occur. b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The proposed project would comply with the plan designations and applicable provisions of the County of San Diego General Plan (County of San Diego 2011). The proposed project would not result in any changes to the existing land use of the site, which currently has a land use designation of “Open Space Park of Preserve” and is zoned for agricultural use. Implementation of the proposed project would remove the trestle bridge and water line, and would not prevent this land from being used for agricultural purposes in the future. The proposed project would be consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies, and agency regulations to which it is subject, including the County of San Diego General Plan. Consequently, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to land use and planning. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-39 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XII. Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 required the State Geologist to initiate mineral land classification to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state. In accordance with guidelines established by the State Mining and Geology Board, mineral deposits in western San Diego County have been classified into Mineral Resource Zones. San Diego’s principal mineral resources include salt, sand, and gravel, all of which have been produced in San Diego for decades. According to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the County of San Diego’s General Plan, the project site lies adjacent to an area designated as MRZ 3 ‐ Resource potentially present (County of San Diego 2011a). However, the proposed project would remove an existing structure and would not preclude future mineral resource recovery activities in the area. Additionally, no mineral extraction or other mining operations occur within the project site or in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, no impact would occur. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not currently used for mineral resource extraction, nor is it located in an area with the known potential for locally important mineral resources. Additionally, the site is not designated in the County General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site (County of San Diego 2011b). Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts related to mineral resources. As such, no mitigation would be required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-40 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XIII. Noise Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Less than Significant Impact. The primary existing sources of noise in the project vicinity are traffic accessing the City of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant, Otay Lakes County Park, and Otay Valley Regional Park (County of San Diego 2020). Other noise sources include the San Diego Regional Firearms Training Center located approximately 0.5 mile south of the proposed project at 440 Alta Rd, San Diego, CA 92154. The land uses surrounding the project site consist of vacant land. The nearest receptors would be Otay Lakes County Park and Otay Valley Regional Park. There are no residential uses in the vicinity of the proposed project. Two types of short‐term noise impacts could occur during project construction. First, construction vehicles would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads. This would include construction worker vehicles and haul trucks traveling to and from the project site through Otay Valley Regional Park. Although there would be a relatively high single‐event noise level as trucks pass through the park, which could cause an intermittent noise nuisance, the effect on longer‐term ambient noise levels would be small. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the short‐term noise associated with commuting construction workers and transporting equipment and materials to the project site. The second category of construction noise would be noise generated during onsite project construction. Demolition would occur only during the permitted daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. as specified by the County of San Diego Municipal Code (Section 36.408). No demolition would occur on Sundays or holidays. Demolition noise will be temporary and will cease entirely once the Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-41 November 2022 ICF 198.20 project is complete. Furthermore, no noise will be generated during the most sensitive nighttime hours. Demolition would comply with the applicable noise regulations of the County of San Diego Municipal Code, and the impact would be less than significant. Operation No Impact. The proposed project would remove a trestle bridge and abandoned water line. Upon completion of the proposed project, the proposed project area would consist of vacant land. There would be no activities associated with operation. Therefore, there would be no change in temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels as a result of the proposed project. There would be no impact. b. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction Less than Significant Impact. Heavy construction equipment has the potential to generate groundborne vibration that could affect nearby structures or residents. However, as there are no neighboring sensitive buildings (i.e., homes) near the project site, and demolition would be temporary; impacts from groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be less than significant. Operation No Impact. There would be no activities associated with the operation of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no vibration impacts. c. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is approximately 2.7 miles northeast of Brown Field Municipal Airport. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline that crosses the Otay River. Once removed, the proposed project area would consist of vacant land and no activities associated with operation would occur. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan or any other applicable rules and regulations as they pertain to airports and airport safety (ALUC 2014). The proposed project would not create residences or other land uses that would be sensitive to aircraft noise. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts related to noise. As such, no mitigation would be required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-42 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XIV. Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace a substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of any homes or businesses or extension of roads or other infrastructure. Construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of temporary construction jobs; however, the additional jobs are expected to be filled by residents who currently live in the San Diego region. The jobs would not result in the relocation of any population. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth through the creation of new homes or businesses in the San Diego region. No impacts would occur. b. Displace a substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project site does not contain any housing units. The proposed project does not propose any housing, nor does it propose any significant extension of roads or infrastructure. As such, because no existing housing units or people would be removed or displaced, the proposed project would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures Proposed project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to population or housing. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-43 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XV. Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Discussion a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in an undeveloped area that is currently served by San Diego County Fire. The nearest fire stations are CalFire Donovan Fire Station 26, located approximately 0.6 mile south, and San Diego County Fire Station 38, located approximately 1 mile south. The proposed project would not involve the creation of new habitable structures or new population growth that could generate increased demand for fire protection services. Demolition activities are not anticipated to disrupt existing fire protection services or affect response times. It is assumed that the presence of construction workers on site at the project site would not result in substantially increased demand for fire protection services and that the existing fire protection operations would be able to accommodate the construction activities of the proposed project. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in an undeveloped area that is currently served by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department. The nearest police station, the Chula Vista Police Department, is located approximately 2.8 miles northwest of the project site at 201 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91915. The proposed project would not increase residential populations at Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-44 November 2022 ICF 198.20 the project site or in nearby communities, and thus would not change the officer‐to‐population ratio for the area. Demolition activities are not anticipated to disrupt existing police protection services or affect response times. It is assumed that the presence of construction workers on site at the project site would not result in substantially increased demand for police protection services and that the existing police protection operations would be able to accommodate the demolition activities of the proposed project. Construction impacts would be less than significant. Schools? No Impact. The project would not include the development of housing units, nor would it induce population growth. Thus, no impact on capacities, service levels, or performance objectives for schools would be generated by the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. Parks? No Impact. The project would not include the development of housing units, nor would it induce population growth. Thus, no impact on capacities, service levels, or performance objectives for parks would be generated by the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. Other public facilities? No Impact. The project would not include the development of housing units, nor would it induce population growth. Thus, no impact on capacities, service levels, or performance objectives for other public facilities would be generated by the project. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to public services. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-45 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XVI. Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within Otay Valley Regional Park and Otay Lakes County Park on vacant land with a land use designation of “Open Space Park of Preserve.” During demolition activities, the park would remain open, however trails would be closed as necessary, requiring users to recreate in other areas. The displacement of recreational users is not anticipated to result in additional strain on surrounding recreational facilities such that additional maintenance of these facilities would be required. Additionally, use of the adjacent recreational areas would be limited to the duration of demolition and would be temporary in nature. The proposed project would not directly or indirectly result in housing development or population growth on the project site or in the surrounding communities. With no new households or residents, the project would not increase the demand or use of local parks or regional recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on existing parks and would not create a need for new neighborhood or regional parks. b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. See the discussion under item XVI.a. The proposed project would not create a need for new neighborhood or regional parks. There would be no impacts. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to recreation. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-46 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XVII. Transportation Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c. Substantially increase hazards because of a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Result in inadequate emergency access? Discussion a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not include any components that would result in long‐term traffic generation. While demolition activities would generate a small number of trips associated with construction equipment and worker vehicles, these trips would be limited to the construction period, and would not be considered substantial in relation to the existing traffic load in the project vicinity. During construction of the proposed project, workers’ vehicles and construction vehicles would access the site from Wueste Road and dirt access roads within Otay Lakes County Park. Roadway users could experience temporary delays from material deliveries, but these delays would be both brief and infrequent. Therefore, they would not affect overall roadway traffic circulation in the project vicinity. Construction would temporarily impede non‐motorized travel along the dirt access roads and multi‐use trails located within Otay County Lakes Park (County of San Diego 2017). Trail closures would be required during project construction; temporary traffic control during construction would meet the requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Caltrans 2014). As demolition would be temporary, and removal of the trestle bridge and water line would not permanently impact the circulation system, impacts would be less than significant. Because there is no operations phase, the proposed project would not generate any trips associated with operations. There would be no impact. b. Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. In compliance with SB 743 and the County of San Diego Transportation Study Guidelines (TSG) (County of San Diego 2020), a project is required to evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA using a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric, pursuant to guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in December 2018 (Technical Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-47 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA). VMT refers to the distance a vehicle travels from each origin to its destination. The TSG identify VMT analysis methodologies, establish VMT thresholds for CEQA transportation impacts, and identify possible mitigation strategies (County of San Diego 2020). The TSG provide the following screening thresholds for land use projects that are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact due to project characteristics and/or location. Table 2 includes the VMT screening criteria. Table 2: CEQA VMT Screening Project Type Screening Threshold Small Residential and Employment Projects Less than 110 daily vehicle trips (trips are based on the number of vehicle trips after any alternative modes/location‐based adjustments are applied) Projects Located in VMT Efficient Areas Use location‐based screening maps (consistent with the project land uses) Locally Serving Retail Projects Projects that are 50,000 square feet or less Locally Serving Public Facilities Public facilities that serve the local community including transit centers, public schools, libraries, post office, park‐and‐ride lots, other government offices, parks/trail heads, and passive public uses. Redevelopment Projects with Greater VMT Efficiency The proposed project’s total project VMT is less than the existing land use’s total VMT. Affordable Housing 100% affordable housing Source: County of San Diego 2020. The CEQA Guidelines recommend use of automobile VMT as the preferred CEQA transportation metric, along with the elimination of auto delay/LOS for CEQA purposes statewide. However, lead agencies have the discretion to select their preferred significance thresholds with respect to what level of VMT increase would cause a significant environmental impact. According to the County’s TSG, the analysis must be conducted by comparing either the project VMT/capita or VMT/employee to the San Diego regional average. If the project average is lower than 85% of the regional average, the VMT impacts of the project can be presumed less than significant. The proposed project would not produce a significant amount of vehicle trips during demolition and would not generate trips during operation. Therefore, the VMT impacts of the project can be presumed less than significant. c. Substantially increase hazards because of a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in any changes to the existing circulation system that would result in a geometric design feature or incompatible use. Demolition would require the use of typical on‐road construction vehicles, which could temporarily block Wueste Road and dirt access roads within Otay Lakes County Park. As the use of construction vehicles would be temporary, it would not result in a significant increased hazard due to an incompatible use. Additionally, staging of equipment and vehicles would primarily be within the project site. There would be no activities associated with the operations of the project site, Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-48 November 2022 ICF 198.20 therefore, there would be no hazards due to incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant. d. Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur in an undeveloped area and would not restrict access for emergency vehicles. After construction of the proposed project, emergency access would remain the same as existing conditions. There would be no activities associated with the operations of the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not alter existing conditions related to emergency access. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access, and there would be no impact. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to transportation. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-49 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Discussion a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less than Significant Impact. On April 7, 2020, ICF contacted the NAHC requesting a review of its Sacred Lands Files. The NAHC responded on April 27, 2020, stating that the Sacred Lands File review failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the study area. In addition, as discussed above in Section V. Cultural Resources, the historic Otay trestle structure does not qualify for listing in the NRHO or CRHR. The cultural resources survey did not identify any previously undocumented archaeological resources in the project area and did not relocate any components of the previously recorded resource. Please see Section V. Cultural Resources, for further discussion of potential cultural resources on the project site. Because no tribal cultural resources were identified, previously recorded cultural resources were not identified, and the trestle structure nor any other resource did not qualify for NRHP or CRHR listing, there would be less than significant impacts to Tribal cultural resources. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-50 November 2022 ICF 198.20 landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? Less than Significant Impact. The NAHC provided a list of 19 Native American individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the study area. On June 22, 2020, ICF sent outreach letters to all 19 individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC. The letters described the proposed project and requested information on cultural resources in or nearby the study area. To date, replies have been received from the contacted Tribes. The District does not currently have any consulting Tribes. The Native American correspondence is documented in Appendix A. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-51 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XIX.Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a.Require or result in the relocation orconstruction of new or expanded water,wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage,electric power, natural gas, ortelecommunications facilities, the construction orrelocation of which could cause significantenvironmental effects?b.Have sufficient water supplies available to servethe project and reasonably foreseeable futuredevelopment during normal, dry, and multipledry years?c.Result in a determination by the wastewatertreatment provider that serves or may serve theproject that it has adequate capacity to serve theproject’s projected demand in addition to theprovider’s existing commitments?d.Generate solid waste in excess of state or localstandards, or in excess of the capacity of localinfrastructure, or otherwise impair theattainment of solid waste reduction goals?e.Comply with federal, state, and local managementand reduction statutes and regulations related tosolid waste? Discussion a.Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The existing 24‐inch water pipeline is currently abandoned; it was replaced by the Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline in 2001. Therefore, the removal of this water line will not require the construction of water facilities elsewhere. The proposed project would not increase impervious surface in the project area during construction or operation. The proposed project would not require the relocation or construction of new water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. There would be no impact. b.Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a rural area serviced by OWD. The proposed project would not require new or expanded entitlements for water service. Construction Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-52 November 2022 ICF 198.20 at the project site would require temporary use of water for dust suppression or other construction activities. This water may be accessed through existing onsite utilities or brought to the site by water trucks. This use of water would be temporary and would not represent a significant water use demand. There would be no water use during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. No wastewater services or connections to existing facilities are required by the project. There would be no generation of wastewater as there would be no habitable structures on‐site. No new impervious surface would be created as part of the project. It is assumed that any future stormwater runoff volumes would be similar in nature to the current conditions at the project site. Therefore, there would be no impacts on wastewater system capacity. d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste generated during demolition and construction activities would be disposed of at Otay Landfill, which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project’s disposal needs, or at another licensed recycling facility for recycling or reuse. No solid waste would be generated during operation. The impact would be less than significant. e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. As described above, the proposed project would be served by a permitted landfill. In addition, the facility would continue to comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-53 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XX. Wildfire Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks of, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The County of San Diego’s Emergency Operations Plan is the emergency response plan used by key partner agencies within the County to respond to major emergencies and disasters. The proposed project is within the San Diego County Operational Area (County of San Diego 2018). Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur in an undeveloped area and would not restrict access for emergency vehicles. After construction of the proposed project, emergency access would remain the same as existing conditions. There would be no activities associated with the operations of the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not alter existing conditions related to emergency response or evacuation. The proposed project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks of, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than Significant Impact. The County of San Diego is subject to both wildland and urban fires because of its climate, topography, and native vegetation. Extended drought, characteristic of the region’s Mediterranean climate and increasingly severe dry periods associated with global warming, has resulted in large areas of dry native vegetation that provide fuel for wildland fires. State law requires all local jurisdictions to identify any Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within their areas of responsibility (California Government Code Sections 51175–51189). Inclusion within Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-54 November 2022 ICF 198.20 these zones is based on vegetation density, slope severity, and other relevant factors that contribute to fire severity. The project site is within an area that has been identified as a VHFHSZ wildland fire hazard area (CALFIRE 2020). The project site would be adjacent to native fuels that could exacerbate fire risk, and the project site contains steep slopes that could be prone to landslide or erosion. The proposed project would involve demolition, during which the use of construction equipment and materials that may cause sparks could increase the risk of the ignition or spread of wildfire. However, the use of such equipment would be temporary, and would be required to follow all fire‐prevention protocols that are standard practice for the prevention of wildfire. The District would require the contractor to develop and implement a wildfire prevention plan during the demolition process. established by the District. Operation of the proposed project would not introduce any new use that would exacerbate existing wildfire risks. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to exacerbate wildfire risk. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project would not require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk. There would be no impact. d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The proposed project is located within undeveloped area and would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with post‐fire hazards. There would be no impacts. Mitigation Measures Project implementation would not result in significant impacts related to wildfire. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-55 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less‐than‐Significant Impact No Impact a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. As discussed above under Sections IV and V, potential impacts on biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. Regarding cultural resources, the site appears to have been an expedient tool making or cobble testing site in conjunction with the location on a mesa type, subsurface deposits are unlikely to be associated with the resource. The site is not recommended eligible for the CRHR under Criterion D. However, although no cultural resources were observed, it is possible there are deposits present in the subsurface that could be exposed by ground‐disturbing activities occurring as part of the proposed demolition. Therefore, due to the presence of a previously recorded site and the proposed ground‐disturbing activities, a significant impact to an archaeological resource could occur. To reduce the potentially significant impact, mitigation measures MM‐CUL‐1, MM‐CUL‐2, and MM‐CUL‐3, as described below, would be implemented during the project. These mitigation measures are consistent with mitigation measures required in the Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR (OWD 2016). These mitigation measures would require additional cultural resource survey if the Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-56 November 2022 ICF 198.20 project boundaries change to include areas that were not surveyed for the project, and would require archeologist and Native American monitoring during grading activity. If archaeological resources are discovered during ground‐disturbing activities, the mitigation measures would require the contractor to direct work away from the location of the discovery, and either avoidance of the resource, reduction in ground‐disturbing activities, or recovery of the archaeological resource. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, as discussed in Section VII, the project site is underlain by the Otay Formation and the proposed project would include excavation up to 5 feet, which would potentially destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature if it were to extend into the formation. Implementation of MM-GEO-1 would require a qualified paleontologist to develop and execute a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) and supervise a paleontological monitor who would monitor all ground‐disturbing activities. Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in impacts on biological resources that would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, nor would the proposed project eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less-than-Significant Impact. As detailed throughout this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, or tribal cultural resources, and therefore would not have any potential to contribute to a cumulatively considerable significant impact on any of these resource areas. Less‐than‐significant project‐level impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, energy, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire were identified. A cumulative analysis for these resources is presented below. Cumulative impacts, as opposed to project‐level impacts, are impacts on the physical environment that result from the incremental effects of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. There are no known cumulative projects within the study area. Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and plans associated with aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology/water quality, utilities and service systems, and tribal cultural resources, including the City of La Mesa General Plan. Impacts related to cultural resources, geology/soils and hazards and hazardous materials are generally site‐specific and not additive across a landscape. In addition, the less‐than‐significant impacts on these resources would not add appreciably to impacts of any cumulative projects that could result in a significant cumulative impact due to the minor nature of identified impacts and the Environmental Checklist Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Administrative Draft 4-57 November 2022 ICF 198.20 low intensity of known cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts related to these resource areas would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Because the project involves only demolition of existing infrastructure, and emissions from construction would be temporary and localized, construction emissions for the proposed project would be minimal and would not cause a cumulatively considerable air quality impact. In addition, there would not be a substantial number of other concurrent projects or intensity of construction or operation in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project such that construction of the proposed project would contribute to a temporary cumulative impact related to noise and vibration or transportation and traffic. Once the demolition is completed, there is no subsequent or operations phase of the project. Therefore, the proposed project when combined with cumulative projects would not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less-than-Significant Impact. As demonstrated in the analysis in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not have any substantial adverse effects on the environment, including human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project involves only demolition activities, there is no operational phase; and demolition would be short in duration. Based on the size and nature of the proposed project, sensitive receptor health risks and exposure would be intermittent and infrequent. Furthermore, there would be no cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. As such, the effects on human beings as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant. Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 5-1 November 2022 ICF 198.20 Chapter 5 References Cited I. Aesthetics California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Scenic Highways. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap‐landscape‐architecture‐and‐community‐livability/lap‐liv‐i‐scenic‐highways. II. Air Quality SDAPCD 20201. Attainment Status. Available: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdc/apcd/en/air‐quality‐planning/attainment‐status.html. Accessed: August 4, 2021. III. Agricultural and Forestry Resources California Department of Conservation. 2020. California Important Farmland 1984–2018. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/. IV. Biological Resources ICF. 2022. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project. V. Cultural Resources Otay Water District. 2016. Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR. VII. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources County of San Diego. 2011. County of San Diego General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/gpupdate/docs/BOS_Aug2011/EIR/FEIR_2.05_‐_Cultural_2011.pdf. VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. Accessed August 2021. References Cited Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 5-2 November 2022 ICF 198.20 County of San Diego. 2018. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/advance/cap/publicreviewdocuments/PostBOSDocs/San%20Diego%20County%20Final%20CAP.pdf IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Airport Land Use Commission. 2014. Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Approved December 20, 2010. Available: https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=2976&language=en‐US&PortalId=0&TabId=225. Accessed: December 28, 2020. CAL Fire. 2020. Official Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map. Available: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed: December 28, 2020. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. EnviroStor Database. Available: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=lower+otay+lake. Accessed: December 28, 2020. XII. Land Use County of San Diego. 2011. General Plan. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/generalplan.html. Accessed: December 29, 2020. XII. Mineral Resources County of San Diego. 2011a. General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Figure C-4. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/gpupdate/ConservationandOpenSpace.pdf. County of San Diego. 2011b. County of San Diego General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report. Available https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/gpupdate/docs/BOS_Aug2011/EIR/FEIR_2.10_‐_Minerals_2011.pdf. XIII. Noise County of San Diego. 2020. Find a Park. Available: https://www.sdparks.org/content/sdparks/en/parklist.html Airport Land Use Commission. 2014. Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Approved December 20, 2010. Available: https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=2976&language=en‐US&PortalId=0&TabId=225. References Cited Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Final 5-3 November 2022 ICF 198.20 XVII. Transportation California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2014. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/‐/media/dot‐media/programs/safety‐programs/documents/ca‐mutcd/rev‐5/camutcd2014‐rev5‐a11y.pdf. County of San Diego. 2017. Otay Lakes County Park Brochure. Available: https://www.sdparks.org/content/dam/sdparks/en/pdf/BrochuresMiscellaneous/2017_Otay%20Lakes_Brochure_FINAL.pdf. County of San Diego. 2020. Transportation Study Guidelines. Online: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/SB743/COSD%20TSG%20FINAL.pdf XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources No tribes have requested ongoing consultation pursuant to AB52. XX. Wildfire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. County of San Diego. 2018. San Diego County Emergency Operations Plan. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/oes/emergency_management/oes_jl_oparea.html. Appendix A Biological Resources Letter Report 525 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA +1.858.578.8964 +1.844.545.2301 fax icf.com November 16, 2022 Ms. Lisa Coburn‐Boyd Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 91978 Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report for the Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Dear Ms. Coburn‐Boyd: Otay Water District (District) proposes the Trestle Bridge Demolition Project (proposed project) to demolish an existing trestle bridge that currently carries an abandoned waterline over the Otay River. This biological resources letter report provides the existing conditions of the vicinity, analyzes potential effects on sensitive biological resources associated with the removal of the trestle bridge, and recommends measures to avoid impacts or reduce the significance of potential impacts. Portions of this Biological Letter Report are taken from ICF’s 2014 Summary of Biological Findings for the Abandoned Waterline and Trestle Bridge Project letter report (ICF 2014). Project Description The proposed project consists of the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24‐inch water pipeline in the Otay Mesa area. The pipeline was replaced by the Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline in 2001. The trestle also carries an abandoned high‐pressure gas line that supplied the 870‐1 Pump Station, which had prevented the trestle from being demolished previously. San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) abandoned this gas line in 2017 and replaced it with a feed from the south. Since the existing water pipeline is no longer in service, the District intends to remove the trestle and pipeline to address liability concerns. The total length of the pipeline and bridge to be removed is approximately 400 linear feet. The bridge portion over the river is suspended about 40–50 feet above the riverbed and is approximately 170 linear feet of the total length. Demolition of the trestle bridge and water line is anticipated to occur over a 4‐month period. Any construction activities would occur only during the permitted daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. as specified by the County of San Diego municipal code (Section 36.408). Construction of theproposed project would occur in one phase and include the following activities: •Mobilize to site/improve access roads •Cap utilities •Demolish water line and trestle bridge •Removal of material from the site Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 2 of 25 South of the trestle bridge, approximately 900 feet of access road would be improved and widened to 12 feet, for an area of 10,800 square feet (0.25 acre). The first 80 feet of the road would need to be realigned to meet construction vehicle requirements, necessitating clearing and grading work for this segment. North of the trestle bridge, most of the existing roads would be wide enough to accommodate construction equipment. However, approximately 200 feet from the end of the road to the exposed piping would need to be widened to 10 feet, for an area of 2,000 square feet. The work area at the bridge site on the northern and southern sides of the trestle would be approximately 0.25 acre. This acreage does not include staging areas. Three staging areas would be required, one on the northern side of the bridge and two on the southern side, for a total of 0.15 acre. Staging areas would consist of land that is already disturbed. Equipment for construction would include a 90‐ton crane, a Bobcat skid‐steer loader, dump trucks, and a backhoe or excavator (Caterpillar 345C L Hydraulic Excavator or smaller) for demolition and earthwork to prepare the project site. Project Location The proposed project is in the unincorporated community of Otay Mesa, San Diego County (Figure 1—all figures are presented in Attachment A). The site is situated approximately 0.5 mile south of the Lower Otay Lake, northwest of the George F. Bailey Detention Facility, and north of the Otay Water District Roll Reservoir. The site is within the Otay Mesa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5‐minute quadrangle map (Figure 2). Environmental and Regulatory Setting The proposed project is located within the limits of the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) County Subarea Plan (South County Plan) South County Segment, although the District is not a signatory to the Plan. The trestle removal site and most of the length of the access roads are within Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 6441001900, which is owned by the County of San Diego and managed as part of the County Otay Lakes Regional Park. APN 6441001900 was designated in the County Subarea Plan as a “Take Authorized” area. This designation is for lands whose impacts were mitigated with the establishment of Hardline Preserves in South County Segment and for which no additional mitigation is required for impacts on covered species or their habitats. Although activities conducted by the District are not covered by the MSCP, the Take Authorized designation shows that activities within this parcel do not have an effect on hardline preserve or biological resource core areas. Surrounding lands to the east and west support undeveloped lands with mostly native habitat. Nearby, the Otay Water Treatment Plant and the Otay Lakes County Park lie to the north, the Otay Open Space Preserve to the east, and the George F. Bailey Detention Center and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility to the south. The Otay River traverses the Biological Study Area (BSA) from east to west and crosses beneath the trestle bridge that is the focus of this proposed project. This portion of the Otay River supports riparian vegetation. The BSA ranges in elevation from 260 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at its lowest point in the bed of the Otay River to 380 feet AMSL at its highest point. No other potential waterways are present in the BSA. Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 3 of 25 Four soil types, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are mapped within the proposed project (USDA 1973; USDA/NRCS 2020). These include San Miguel–Exchequer rocky silt loams, Huerhuero loam, riverwash, and terrace escarpments: San Miguel‐Exchequer rocky silt loams is about 50 percent San Miguel silt loam and 40 percentExchequer silt loam. Soils in the San Miguel series consist of well‐drained shallow to moderatelydeep silt loams that have a clay subsoil. Soils in the Exchequer series consist of shallow and veryshallow, well‐drained silt loams. San Miguel‐Exchequer complex occurs on mountainousuplands. In the BSA, this soil type occurs north of the Otay River and in the southeastern portionof the BSA. Huerhuero loams are moderately well drained soils with a clay subsoil, developed from sandymarine sediments. They occur from 10 to 400 feet AMSL on marine terraces. Riverwash typically occurs in intermittent stream channels. The material is typically sandy,gravelly, or cobbly. In the BSA, this soil type occurs in association with the Otay River and itsbanks. Terrace escarpments consists of steep to very steep escarpments and escarpment‐likelandscapes. The terrace escarpments typically occur on the nearly even fronts of terraces oralluvial fans.Riverwash is listed as a hydric soil type and often supports wetland and riparian communities, as well as jurisdictional waterways jurisdictional to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). No work is proposed within riparian areas mapped as Riverwash. San Miguel‐Exchequer and Huerhuero loams are two of the main soil types in San Diego County that historically supported vernal pool complexes (Bauder and McMillin 1998). Therefore, a vernal pool habitat assessment was conducted, as described in the following sections. Survey Methods The BSA for the proposed project consisted of 1) a 50‐foot buffer (100‐foot survey corridor) along all proposed road improvements, including turn‐around areas; and 2) a 100‐foot buffer (200‐foot survey corridor) of the existing trestle bridge and aboveground pipe sections (Figure 3). Prior to conducting field surveys of the BSA, ICF biologists reviewed the Summary of Biological Findings for the Abandoned Waterline and Trestle Bridge Project (ICF 2014) and added the geographic information system (GIS) data collected in 2014 to an ESRI Collector map. These GIS data were verified and refined as needed. Literature and Records Search A review of the following public records was conducted to establish the existence or potential occurrence of sensitive biological resources (e.g., plant or animal species) or water resources within the study area. CDFW California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFW 2022) Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 4 of 25  California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, 8th Edition (CNPS 2022)  San Diego Plant Atlas (San Diego Natural History Museum [SDNHM] 2022)  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office species occurrence data (USFWS 2021)  USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database (USFWS 2020)  USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey maps (USDA/NRCS 2020) The results of the literature review were used to inform which habitat assessments and focused surveys for sensitive species and sensitive vegetation communities would be conducted. Vegetation Mapping and Habitat Assessment Vegetation mapping and a habitat assessment within the BSA was conducted on April 16 and April 27, 2020, by walking meandering transects and from selected vantage points that allowed 100 percent visual coverage of the BSA. Vegetation communities were classified based on the dominant and characteristic plant species, in accordance with the Holland classification system (1986), as modified by Oberbauer et al. (2008). Vegetation mapping was completed with Apple iPad Air devices using the ESRI Collector application. Digital aerial imagery for the BSA was loaded into ESRI Collector, which allowed for the digital mapping of vegetation polygons over aerial imagery in the field. The site was assessed for potential to support special status plant and animal species, including, but not limited to, state and federally listed endangered and threatened species, CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC), and plants listed in the California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR). All plant and wildlife species observed during vegetation mapping were identified, and habitat was assessed for potential to support sensitive species. Plant species were identified to the species level (including subspecies or variety, as applicable) using The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and recorded in a species compendium. Plant common names followed the Checklist of The Vascular Plants of San Diego County Fifth Edition (Rebman and Simpson 2014) if the common names were not provided in Baldwin et al. (2012). Because of the presence of vernal pool‐associated soils and existing vernal pool preserves in the vicinity, the BSA was assessed for potential for vernal pools and other seasonally‐inundated depressions. Special Status Plant Surveys ICF botanists conducted rare plant surveys in the BSA on April 16 and April 27, 2020, following methodology in Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2018) and the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants (USFWS 2000). A total of 7.98 acres were included in the BSA and were surveyed with meandering transects through suitable habitat. All plant species observed were noted, and plants that could not be identified in the field were identified later using taxonomic keys, including Baldwin et al. (2012). Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 5 of 25 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Assessment Federally listed endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino; QCB) is known from the local vicinity. The proposed project occurs within designated critical habitat, as well as within the Recommended Quino Survey Area (USFWS 2014). QCB is not a covered species under the South County Plan (County 1997). ICF senior biologist Brian Lohstroh conducted a habitat assessment for QCB host plants on March 3, 2022. Mr. Lohstroh maintains a USFWS Recovery Permit (TE‐063608‐6) to conduct flight season surveys for QCB and is experienced in identifying QDB host plants. Mr. Lohstroh mapped point and polygon locations of QCB host plant dot‐seed plantain (Plantago erecta) within the BSA. The habitat assessment was conducted in early March 2022, when host plants were at the height of bloom and most easily observable. As QCB are known from the vicinity (USFWS 2021), any host plants are considered occupied habitat, so no focused flight season surveys were conducted to attempt to show absence of the species. Fairy Shrimp Survey ICF conducted a dry season survey of all potentially suitable fairy shrimp habitat within the BSA in 2022. Survey methodology follows the Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2017). ICF senior biologist Brian Lohstroh (Permit# TE‐063608‐6) collected soil samples for the dry season survey on May 19, 2022. Soil samples were collected from three road ruts when the depressions were dry and processed by ICF fairy shrimp biologist and USFWS permitted cyst‐identifier Dale Ritenour (Permit# TE‐58888A‐2.1), in accordance with USFWS 2017. Bat Survey SDNHM bat biologist Drew Stokes and associate biologist Jessica Ryan conducted a visual assessment of the structure and the adjacent rocky cliffs and outcrops on August 26, 2020. SDNHM determined that although the structure itself was not suitable for roosting bats, the adjacent cliffs and rocky outcrops did have potential to support roosting bats. Therefore, SDNHM conducted a visual exit‐count survey, combined with an Anabat Walkabout Active Bat Detector to help with species’ call identification for any bats observed exiting the adjacent rocky habitat. Existing Conditions Habitat and Vegetation Communities A total of six vegetation communities and land cover types were mapped within the BSA, as summarized in Table 1 and shown on Figure 3 (Attachment A). Bedrock is called out separately from the surrounding vegetation community types because rock outcrops are a unique physical feature that might have unusual biological value. A complete list of all plant species detected in the BSA is provided in Appendix B, Plant Species Observed. Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 6 of 25 Table 1. Vegetation Communities within the BSA Oberbauer Code Vegetation Community Name Area (Acres) 11300 Disturbed Habitat 0.76 32500 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 4.63 42200 Non‐native Grassland 0.80 63320 Restored Southern Willow Scrub 0.08 Southern Willow Scrub 0.66 79100 Eucalyptus Woodland 0.31 N/A Bedrock 0.75 Total 7.98* *= sum of values may not equal site total because of rounding Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan coastal sage scrub is a vegetation community typically characterized by low, woody subshrubs that grow up to 3 feet in height. Plant species detected within the Diegan coastal sage scrub in the BSA include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), leafy California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum), San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata), common peak rush‐rose (Crocanthemum scoparium var. vulgare), and ladies’ fingers (Dudleya edulis). A few individuals of San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) occur within the BSA. The Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation community occurs throughout the entire BSA. This habitat may provide suitable nesting habitat for a variety of bird species, including breeding species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (FGC), and has the potential to support federally or state‐listed species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), including federally threatened and SSC coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) and the federally endangered QCB. Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub is described as dense, broad‐leafed, winter‐deciduous riparian thickets dominated by several willow species, mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and occasionally western cottonwood (Populus fremontii). Most stands are too dense to allow much understory development. Plant species detected within the disturbed southern willow scrub in the BSA included Goodding's black willow (Salix gooddingii), cattail (Typha sp.), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), and giant reed (Arundo donax). This vegetation community occurs in association with the Otay River. Southern willow scrub in the BSA supports federally and state‐endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) and provides suitable nesting habitat for a variety of bird species protected by the MBTA and FGC. Non-Native Grassland Non-native grassland habitat is dominated by annual grasses, including bromes (Bromus diandrus, B. hordeaceus, B. rubens), wild oat (Avena fatua and A. barbata), rat‐tail six‐weeks grass (Festuca myuros), and schismus (Schismus arabicus and S. barbatus), and can have showy, flowering natives and nonnatives, such as filarees (Erodium cicutarium and E. botrys), mustards (Brassica nigra and Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 7 of 25 Hirschfeldia incana), tarplant (Deinandra fasciculatum), and lupines (Lupinus bicolor and L. succulentus). Within the BSA, this vegetation community occurs north of the Otay River. Disturbed Habitat Disturbed habitat consists of areas supporting densely to sparsely distributed nonnative vegetation. In the BSA, plants occurring within disturbed habitat included short‐pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and natal grass (Melinis repens ssp. repens), which occur on steep slopes. Disturbed areas do not typically support listed species due to lack of suitable habitat. Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus woodlands are dominated by gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.) with various understory development, from bare to limited shrub cover to well‐developed herbaceous and shrub understory. Typically, there is a lack of species diversity and density due to chemical and physical properties of gum tree leaf and bark litter. Within the BSA, this habitat is dominated by silver dollar gum (Eucalyptus polyanthemos), which occurs north of the Otay River. Bedrock Areas of rock associated with the canyon walls were classified as bedrock. These areas are mostly devoid of vegetation due to the absence of a soil substratum and their steepness. These areas may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds and roosting habitat for bats. Special Status Species Occurrence and Discussion This section discusses special status species observed or detected within the BSA, as well as special‐status species with potential to occur. A special status species is one that is listed by federal or state agencies as threatened or endangered or candidate; listed as a California SSC; listed in the CRPR; or could meet the CEQA Section 15380 definition of rare, threatened, or endangered. A complete list of all plant species detected is presented in Appendix B. A complete list of all animal species detected is presented in Appendix C, Animal Species Observed. Special Status Plant Species Six CRPR‐listed plant species were observed within the BSA and are described below. All special status plants are shown on Figure 4 (Appendix A). Plant species were assessed for potential to occur within the BSA, and results are presented in Appendix D, Special Status Plant and Animal Species Potential to Occur. After rare plant surveys were conducted, any other special status plant species known from the region and vicinity were determined to have moderate or less potential to occur within the BSA. San Diego Barrel Cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) CRPR 2B.1 The optimal habitat for San Diego barrel cactus is Diegan sage scrub hillsides, often at the crest of slopes and growing in cobbles (Reiser 2001). It is occasionally found on the periphery of vernal pools and mima mound topography at Otay Mesa, sometimes in considerable numbers (Reiser Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 8 of 25 2001). The blooming period for this species is from May through June. In the BSA, approximately 34 individuals were detected in Diegan coastal sage scrub north of the Otay River (Figure 4). San Diego County Viguiera (Viguiera laciniata) CRPR 4.2 San Diego County viguiera is a drought‐deciduous bush in the Compositaceae family, typically found in arid Diegan coastal sage scrub and often a co‐dominant of the shrub community where it occurs (Reiser 2001). The blooming period for this species is from February to June. In the BSA, approximately 242 individuals were observed, primarily on Diegan coastal sage scrub north of the Otay River, with scattered individuals in Diegan coastal sage scrub south of the Otay River (Figure 4). San Diego County viguiera is a species of restricted distribution (southern San Diego County and northern Baja California) but is locally common and often a codominant species in Diegan coastal sage scrub within its range. San Diego Goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii) CRPR 1B.1 San Diego goldenstar is a bulbiferous perennial in the Themidaceae family primarily restricted in distribution to southwestern San Diego County. It occurs on clay soils within chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland, and vernal pool habitats. The blooming period for this species is from April to May. In the BSA, hundreds of individuals were found south of the Otay River, scattered within coastal sage scrub and nonnative grassland habitats (Figure 4). Singlewhorl Burrobush (Ambrosia monogyra) CRPR 2B.2 Singlewhorl burrobush occurs on sandy soils in washes in chaparral and Sonoran desert scrub habitats. The blooming period for this species is August to November. This species is more common in Sonoran desert washes, but occurs sporadically in a few washes in extreme southwestern San Diego County (SDNHM 2022). A few individuals of this species were observed near the southern willow scrub habitat in the southern portion of the BSA (Figure 4). Small-Flowered Microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha) CRPR 4.2 Small‐flowered microseris is a small annual in the Compositaceae family found on clay soils in cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, vernal pool peripheries, and grassland habitats. The blooming period for this species is March to May. In the BSA, approximately 200 individuals were found south of the Otay River in many scattered locations (Figure 4). Tecate Cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii) CRPR 1B.1 Tecate cypress is a large shrub/small tree which occurs on clay, gabbroic or metavolcanics soils within closed‐cone coniferous forest and chaparral habitat. Two individuals were detected at the very western portion of the BSA, along the existing access road (Figure 4). Special Status Wildlife Species This section contains information about sensitive and special status wildlife species that were observed or determined to have a high potential to utilize the BSA. Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 9 of 25 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), Federally Endangered Federally listed QCB are known from the vicinity of the BSA (USFWS 2021). Adult QCB were observed in the vernal pool preserve to the northwest of the BSA in 2019 (Figure 6), the hilltop immediately east of the developed area of Otay Lakes County Park, and the Roll Reservoir vicinity south of the BSA. QCB require larval host plants, such as dot‐seed plantain (Plantago erecta), purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta), and purple Chinese houses (Collinsia concolor), to complete their life cycle. The USFWS generally considers any host plants within 1 kilometer of known QCB populations to be occupied habitat. The entirety of the BSA is within 1 kilometer of known populations of QCB. Therefore, any host plants within the project would be considered occupied habitat. QCB host plant dot‐seed plantain was observed in the BSA in and adjacent to the potential impact area during a focused QCB host plant habitat assessment in March 2022 (Figure 6). Sensitive Reptile Species The BSA contains native, naturalized, and open habitat suitable for supporting sensitive reptile species, including 4.63 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.75 acre of bedrock, and 0.80 acre of nonnative grassland (Table 1). No sensitive reptiles were incidentally observed during other surveys; therefore, no focused surveys were conducted for sensitive reptiles. Sensitive reptile species, including red‐diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber; SSC), Blainville’s horned lizard (Phyrnosoma blanvillii; SSC), and coastal western whiptail (Aspidocelis tigris stejnegeri; SSC), have potential to utilize upland habitats in the BSA. Two‐striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii; SSC) is a primarily aquatic species with high potential to utilize the riparian areas in the Otay River under the trestle bridge in the BSA. Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), Federally Endangered, California Endangered Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is a federally and state‐listed endangered migratory songbird. Least Bell’s vireo is known as a summer breeding species in suitable habitat in the Otay River valley (Unitt 2004). Male least Bell’s vireo typically reappear in late March to early April in coastal San Diego County, with females following several weeks later (Unitt 2004). During the biological survey in 2014, a least Bell’s vireo was observed in the Otay River. Suitable nesting habitat for least Bell’s vireo exists within southern willow scrub vegetation within the Otay River, beneath the trestle bridge (Figure 5). Least Bell’s vireo likely breeds in the BSA during the summer, but is absent from the BSA annually from approximately September through March. The disturbed pull‐out at the southwestern end of the potential impact area is mapped as southern willow scrub‐restoration, is primarily vegetated with small goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii), and is not suitable breeding habitat for riparian birds, including least Bell’s vireo. No designated critical habitat for least Bell’s vireo exists within the BSA. All riparian habitat under the trestle bridge within the BSA (Figure 3) would be considered vireo‐occupied habitat during the breeding season (March 15–September 15, annually). Other Riparian Birds Other California SSC summer breeding birds with high potential to utilize the BSA include yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) and yellow‐breasted chat (Icteria virens); suitable habitat within the Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 10 of 25 BSA is considered occupied by yellow warbler and yellow‐breasted chat during the summer. All of these birds are neotropical migrants that breed in San Diego County during the summer, but are absent in the winter. Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is a federally endangered neotropical migrant that was historically known to nest in the Otay River Valley (Unitt 2004), but the BSA does not support riparian forest with suitable complexity to support this species. Because the BSA does not support suitable habitat, this species is considered absent, and the project has no potential to impact this species. California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Federally Threatened, SSC The BSA contains 4.63 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub suitable as breeding habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. During 2020, three California gnatcatchers were observed within the 4.63 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat observed in the BSA. Diegan coastal sage scrub is potential breeding habitat for California gnatcatcher. No designated critical habitat for California gnatcatcher exists within the BSA. Raptors The BSA supports suitable nesting habitat for tree‐, shrub‐, and ground‐nesting raptors. The bedrock exposures do not support suitable cliff faces for cliff‐nesting raptor species. Incidental observations of raptor species in the BSA included a Cooper’s hawk (Accipter cooperii; CDFW watch list), four white‐tailed kites (Elanus leucurus; California fully protected) in the eucalyptus grove west of the trestles, and a northern harrier (Circus hudsonius; SSC) flying over the slope north of the structure (Figure 5). All of these species could nest in the Otay River Valley in the vicinity of the BSA. Special status Wildlife Species Determined Absent This section discusses highly sensitive wildlife species with potential to occur in the vicinity but which were determined to be absent from the BSA. Other sensitive species determined to have moderate or lower potential to occur in the BSA are discussed in Appendix D. Fairy Shrimp Federally‐listed endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) are known to occur within vernal pool preserves in the vicinity of the BSA (USFWS 2021). Three road ruts potentially suitable as habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp were observed in these access roads the BSA (Figure 5). The sampled road ruts are shallow and isolated features, which made them unlikely to support fairy shrimp. The sampled ruts were assessed to have low but not discountable potential to support San Diego fairy shrimp prior to sampling because of the extremely shallow topography, but a protocol‐level dry season survey was conducted in 2022 to provide information on potential occupancy. No fairy shrimp cysts were observed in soil samples from any of the three sampled depressions in the BSA during a dry season focused survey in 2022; no cysts of San Diego fairy shrimp or any other large branchiopods were observed (Appendix E, 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey for Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Pump Station). Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 11 of 25 San Diego fairy shrimp are known from vernal pool preserves in the vicinity and large basins on terraces below, in the Otay River Valley, so the potential for them to occur in ruts in the access roads was not discounted. In the Otay Mesa region, fairy shrimp are frequently found within road ruts because mud carried on vehicles can move cysts and introduce the species into new habitat; there is also some potential for cysts to be moved by waterfowl, shorebirds, or other wildlife. The vernal pool preserves in the vicinity of these two projects are fenced, which vastly reduces potential for vehicular transmission from vernal pools into road ruts within the BSA. The project would not conduct work within any vernal pools or their watersheds or other basins occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp or their watersheds. If Branchinecta cysts had been found within any of the three ruts within the access roads in the BSA, a wet‐season survey would be necessary to determine the species, since the cysts of San Diego and the co‐occurring Lindahl’s fairy shrimp (Branchineca lindahli) are similar in appearance. The extremely small size of these ruts also means that samples were taken from the entirety of the basins and there is no reasonable potential for there to be un‐surveyed parts of the ruts supporting un‐surveyed cyst bank. The absence of any cyst bank in these small features means it is impossible for adult shrimp to arise to be observed in a wet season survey. Because of the lack of cysts in these ruts, the ruts are determined to not support San Diego fairy shrimp. Bats No sensitive bat species were observed within rock features in the BSA during a survey by SDNHM bat biologist Drew Stokes in 2020. Within the BSA, suitable habitat for cave and rock nesting bat species included two fractures in rocks: 1) a large, horizontal fracture (approximately 5‐feet long and 5 feet above the northern end of the structure in the rocky habitat, with a southwestern‐facing aspect; and 2) a large diagonal fracture (with a series of fractures branching from it) at the southern end of the structure in a steep vertical cliff with a northwestern‐facing aspect. Just after sunset, several small bats were observed, identified as canyon bats (Parastrellus hesperus), which are rock‐crevice dwellers that typically roost solitarily, but are sometimes found in small colonies. Using a bat call detector, SDNHM also detected several Mexican free‐tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) and two western small‐footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum). No bats were observed exiting from any of the fractures or rocky habitat near the structure. SDNHM concluded that there were no bat colonies in or directly adjacent to the structure. Wetlands Otay River under the BSA is assumed to be a state jurisdictional wetland and has potential to have federally protected wetlands within the riparian area. The trestle pipeline would be removed by crane; no work would be conducted within the Otay River. No vegetation would be removed, and no deposition would occur into any potential wetlands in the Otay River. Because no work would occur in the Otay River, a formal jurisdictional delineation was not considered to be necessary and was not conducted. No other potentially jurisdictional drainages were present in the BSA. Wildlife Movement Although the parcel the trestle bridge is in a parcel designated as Take Authorized under the MSCP (County 1997) and is considered already mitigated by establishment of the MSCP preserve system, the parcel and the surrounding lands are generally either undeveloped or designated open space. Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 12 of 25 This open space allows for open movement of wildlife. Riparian corridors are often used for movement of medium to large animals, such as bobcat (Lynx rufus), cougar (Puma concolor), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), because of the presence of cover and water and because riparian areas are often the only undeveloped areas remaining in otherwise‐developed landscapes. The trestle bridge spans the Otay River and the river could serve as a movement corridor. Bridge removal will occur during daylight and will not constrain nocturnal wildlife movement. The open habitat around the BSA does not constrain wildlife movement to the riparian corridor, so wildlife are free to move freely in the environment. Effects Analysis a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Special Status Plants Four special‐status plant species were observed within the BSA: San Diego barrel cactus, San Diego goldenstar, Tecate cypress, and singlewhorl burrobush. The project has potential to affect these CRPR 1 and CRPR 2 species. Impacts on individuals of any of these species would be potentially significant; individual species are discussed below. A few individuals of Tecate cypress and singlewhorl burrobush are present in and adjacent to the potential impact area. Impacts on these large shrubs would be avoided through implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measure (AMM)‐BIO‐1, Biological Preconstruction Survey, and AMM‐BIO‐2, Biological Monitoring (below). Within implementation of these avoidance measures, there would be no impact on these species. Numerous individual San Diego barrel cactus are present in the potential impact area on the northern side of Otay River. These individuals are primarily scattered on bedrock cliffs. Impacts on these cactus would be avoided through implementation of AMM‐BIO‐1, AMM‐BIO‐2, and AMM‐BIO‐5. With implementation of these avoidance measures, there would be no impact on San Diego barrel cactus. Populations of San Diego goldenstar are present in the BSA, adjacent to the potential impact area. Impacts on San Diego goldenstar would be avoided through implementation of AMM‐BIO‐1 and AMM‐BIO‐2. Within implementation of these avoidance measures, there would be no impact on San Diego goldenstar. Two CRPR 4 (species of limited distribution) species were observed within the BSA: San Diego County viguiera and small‐flowered microseris. These species are not considered to meet the definition of endangered or rare under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15380. Because the project is very limited in its extent and the total number of these species that could be affected, any impacts on individuals of these species would not affect the local long‐term survival of the species. Given that San Diego County viguiera and small‐flowered microseris are not considered Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 13 of 25 special‐status species at this location, any impacts on these species would not be an impact on a sensitive species. Special Status Animals Riparian Bird Species Sensitive neotropical migrant riparian bird species, including least Bell’s vireo, yellow warbler, and yellow‐breasted chat, have potential to utilize habitat under the proposed project as breeding habitat. Impacts on suitable habitat would be a significant impact on these species. The project is designed to work from a crane from the canyon sides and would not enter or affect the sensitive riparian habitat in the Otay River below. Measure AMM‐6 would be implemented to ensure that construction work would not result in impacts to habitat under the bridge. This aspect of the project would have no impact on riparian bird habitat. The disturbed pull‐out at the southwestern end of the potential impact area was mapped as southern willow scrub–restoration but is primarily vegetated with small goldenbush and is not currently suitable breeding habitat for riparian birds. This area will be used for temporary staging of equipment; it will not be graded and vegetation would not be removed. Because this area is not yet habitat for riparian birds, the project would not result in an impact on suitable breeding habitat for riparian bird species and any direct impacts on vegetation in this area would have no impact on riparian birds. Work adjacent to or over riparian habitat in the Otay River during the breeding season could result in noise and other indirect disturbance impacts on the breeding success of sensitive riparian bird species through disturbance of activity patterns, stress, and distraction, which could lead to reduced nesting success or mortality by predation. These indirect effects, if they occurred during the breeding season would be a potentially significant impact on breeding riparian birds. AMM‐BIO‐3, Project Timing, ensures that project activities would not occur during the breeding season. Therefore, the project would have no impact on riparian bird species. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Coastal California gnatcatcher has been observed within suitable habitat within the BSA and is assumed to occupy the 4.63 acres of Diegan coastal scrub present in the BSA. The project has the potential to temporarily disturb up to 0.36 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat on roadside access roads, determined by overlaying the potential impact area over the mapped vegetation communities. The actual temporary impacts may be less than this, because of the imprecision in comparing proposed work areas to vegetation communities mapped on air photos. Any impacts on roadside vegetation would be reduced through implementation of AMM‐BIO‐2, which would ensure that shrub impacts are minimized. Project activities during the breeding season could result in direct or indirect effects on nesting coastal California gnatcatcher and would be a potentially significant impact. However, the project is designed to avoid activities during the breeding season. AMM‐BIO‐3, Project Timing, ensures that the project would not occur during the breeding season. Therefore, the project would have no impact on coastal California gnatcatcher. The project does not anticipate any impacts on coastal California gnatcatcher based on the project avoidance and minimization measures. However, should any impacts occur to coastal sage scrub Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 14 of 25 habitat during the project, as determined by the project biologist, the impacts will be mitigated as described in MM‐BIO‐1. With implementation of AMM‐BIO‐2,AMM‐BIO‐3, the project would have no effect on coastal California gnatcatcher. Raptors Sensitive raptor species, including white‐tailed kite and northern harrier, have potential to nest within the BSA. The project was designed to be conducted within the winter to avoid any project‐related direct or indirect impacts on sensitive raptor species. Additionally, AMM‐BIO‐3 ensures that the project would not occur during the breeding season. Therefore, the project would have no impact on raptor species. Sensitive Reptiles Sensitive reptiles species, including red‐diamond rattlesnake, coast horned lizard, and coastal western whiptail, have potential to utilize the BSA. The project would have limited temporary impacts on habitat for these species; disturbance of roadside vegetation would be a less than significant impact. Direct impacts on individuals of these species would be a significant impact. Implementation of AMM‐BIO‐1 and AMM‐BIO‐2 would ensure that the project does not have direct impact on these species. Two‐striped gartersnake has high potential to utilize the Otay River in the BSA under the trestle bridge. Removal of the trestle bridge would have no impact on riparian habitat in the Otay River; therefore, the project would have no impact on two‐striped gartersnake. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly QCB is known from the vicinity of the BSA, and all populations of host plants would be considered occupied habitat. Construction of the project during the flight season in proximity to occupied habitat would have potential to affect adult QCB. Implementation of AMM‐BIO‐3 would ensure that the project would not occur during the flight season of QCB and would have no impact on flying adult species. The project has potential to affect QCB host plants potentially occupied by larval QCB. Impacts on occupied larval host plants would be a potentially significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of AMM‐BIO‐1, AMM‐BIO‐2, and AMM‐BIO‐3 would ensure the avoidance of potential impacts on QCB and would therefore have no effect on QCB. Bats A focused habitat assessment and survey for bat species conducted by SDNHM bat biologists in 2020 determined that sensitive bat species were absent from the BSA and that no bat species were utilizing the trestle bridge. Because of bat species absence, the project would have no effect on sensitive bat species. Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 15 of 25 Fairy Shrimp A protocol‐level, dry‐season survey was conducted in 2022 by an ICF fairy shrimp biologist in three small road ruts in the BSA. These road ruts were initially assessed to be marginal suitability, and the dry‐season soil analysis determined that no fairy shrimp cysts were present in the ruts. Because fairy shrimp are absent from the BSA, and the proposed project would have no impacts on the watersheds of any vernal pools, the proposed project would have no impact on listed fairy shrimp. Avoidance and Minimization Measures AMM-BIO-1: Biological Preconstruction Survey. Due to the presence of Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) host plants and rare plants in the potential impact area, the shoulders of the dirt roads and proposed off‐road traverses will be inspected for presence of QCB host plants within 7 days prior to construction. QCB host plants known from the site include dot‐seed plantain, purple owl’s clover, and purple Chinese houses. Populations of host plants mapped in March 2022 and any newly observed host plants present along road shoulders shall be flagged for avoidance with staking and flagging. If any host plants are present within the proposed off‐road travel paths, then the population shall be flagged and shall be avoided; no machinery shall drive over host plant locations at any time of year. AMM-BIO-2: Biological Monitoring. Due to the presence of Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) and its host plants, California gnatcatcher, and sensitive plants in the vicinity of the site, a biological monitor will be onsite full‐time during project activities. The Biological Monitor will ensure that equipment is constrained to existing disturbed road and pads to the maximum extent practicable and will avoid flagged sensitive resources. The Biologist will sweep ahead of equipment to ensure that no sensitive reptiles or mammals are affected by vehicle movements. The biologist will ensure that project activities do not affect any QCB host plants, Tecate cypress, singlewhorl burrobush, San Diego barrel cactus, or San Diego goldenstar. AMM-BIO-3: Project Timing. Sensitive neotropical migrant bird species utilize riparian habitat around the project during the summer, and sensitive resident bird species will breed in the surrounding open space during the breeding season. Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) have potential to fly from late February to early May. To avoid any potential impacts on federally listed QCB and listed and sensitive bird species, all work will be conducted within the period of September 15 to February 15. AMM-BIO-4: Project Timing – Raptor Nesting. White‐tailed kite, northern harrier, and other sensitive raptors may begin nesting as early as January 1, which could overlap with the construction timeline. If Project activities occur between January 1 and February 15, the District will employ a qualified biologist to conduct a focused survey for white‐tailed kite nests within 300‐feet of the project site no greater than 15 days prior to the start of construction work. If white‐tailed kite nests are found, the qualified biologist shall develop a species‐specific avoidance plan for CDFW review and approval. Any measures approved in the avoidance plan will be implemented prior to the start of construction. If no active nests are found during the focused survey, nothing further will be required. If active nests are found during the focused survey, Project personnel shall immediately notify CDFW and establish a minimum 500’ no‐work buffer zone until the qualified biologist determines, and CDFW confirms, that all chicks have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest site. If a lapse in Project‐related activities of Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 16 of 25 14 days or longer occurs, another focused survey is required before Project activities can be reinitiated. AMM-BIO-5. San Diego Barrel Cactus Salvage. San Diego barrel cactus present within the BSA shall be avoided as described in AMM‐BIO‐2. If there are no practicable way to avoid SDBC within the project area, barrel cactus shall be salvaged by the project biologist and transplanted to a suitable receptor site at the San Miguel Habitat Management Area (HMA). Project biologist will mark the north side of each cactus salvaged so it can be planted in the same orientation in which it was growing at the project site. Plants may be stored in cool, dry conditions for a short time or taken directed to the HMA. AMM-BIO-6. Site Environmental Controls. Otay Water District will ensure that contractors will implement standard temporary environmental controls at the work area to prevent damage to sensitive southern willow scrub vegetation below the bridge. Contractor shall prevent bridge pieces and debris from falling into the river through the use of controls such as large tight- weave nets, or fabric or plastic sheeting, wrapped under the bridge to catch debris. Worksite shall be maintained free of trash and debris. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact. The project proposes to remove hard structures from open space and would have no permanent development footprint. The project would have no ongoing operations impacts. Therefore, the project would have no permanent impacts on sensitive natural communities. The project would have potential for temporary disturbance on sensitive vegetation communities on roadsides and in existing disturbed roadside areas. Sensitive vegetation within the mapped potential impact area includes 0.36 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.05 acre of non‐native grassland, and 0.08 acre of southern willow scrub (revegetation area) (Table 2). Table 2. Vegetation Communities within the Potential Impact Area Oberbauer Code Vegetation Community Name Project Impacts (acres) 11300 Disturbed Habitat 0.45 32500 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub† 0.36 42200 Non‐Native Grassland† 0.05 63320 Southern Willow Scrub (restoration)† 0.08 79100 Eucalyptus Woodland 0.04 N/A Bedrock 0.03 Total 0.99 †= sensitive vegetation community The actual temporary impacts may be less than the values in Table 2 due to the imprecision in comparing proposed work areas to vegetation communities mapped on air photos. Impacts on roadside vegetation would be reduced through implementation of AMM‐BIO‐2, which would ensure that equipment is constrained to existing disturbed road and pads to the maximum extent. Temporary impacts on up to 0.36 acre of roadside Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat would be Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 17 of 25 mitigated through credit deduction from the San Miguel Habitat Management Area as described in MM‐BIO‐1. Any temporary roadside impacts will be revegetated after completion of bridge removal, as detailed in MM‐BIO‐2. Compensatory mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation proposed. Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1: Compensatory Habitat Mitigation. Temporary impacts on up to 0.36 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, which is a sensitive vegetation community to CDFW, would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio through credit deduction from the San Miguel Habitat Management Area. MM-BIO-2: Post-Construction Revegetation. Temporarily disturbed areas would be revegetated to reduce impacts on surrounding vegetation communities and limit expansion of existing access roads. At the completion of bridge removal, the laydown areas and access roads shall be completely cleared of debris and all detectable foreign matter. Reseeding of disturbed native habitat, and if necessary, replanting, must be completed according to the specifications and plans. Reseeding must be designed to assure that construction and subsequent long‐term operations do not significantly affect nearby sage scrub, wetland habitats, or habitats containing sensitive species through erosion, siltation, or dusting. Specifications and plans will include provisions for the seeding and/or planting of work areas and any edges of the access roads which were disturbed. Seeding and/or planting would involve only appropriate native plant species similar in composition to the adjacent undisturbed vegetation communities. The qualified biologist shall monitor these activities to ensure nonnative or invasive plant species are not used in the seed mix or planting palettes. No fertilizers or pesticides would be used in the seeded/planted areas. All planting stock would be inspected for exotic invertebrate pests (e.g., argentine ants) and use of any stock found to be infested with such pests would not be allowed in the seeded/planted areas. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. The trestle bridge spans the Otay River, which is potentially jurisdictional to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, and which has potential to contain state and federal wetlands. Trestle bridge demolition would be conducted entirely by crane and would not affect the Otay River below. Therefore, the project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than significant impact. The trestle bridge spans the Otay River, which may serve as a wildlife corridor for native species. The proposed project would not have any direct temporary impacts on habitat within the riparian corridor and would have no permanent impacts; the project would remove a developed structure from the otherwise‐undeveloped vicinity and would have no continued operations after removal. Construction work on the project would only be conducted during daytime hours and would have limited temporary impacts on what would be primarily Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 18 of 25 nocturnal movements within the Otay River and surrounding uplands. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on wildlife movement. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. No local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would apply to this project. Therefore, the project would have no impact on local policies or ordinances. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project does not conflict with the provisions of any habitat conservation plans. The project is located within the limits of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan County Subarea Plan (‘South County’ Plan) South County Segment. The trestle removal site and most of the access roads are located within APN 6441001900, which is owned by County of San Diego and managed as part of the County Lakes Regional Park. APN 6441001900 was designated in the County Subarea Plan as a “Take Authorized” parcel. This designation is for lands whose impacts were mitigated with the establishment of Hardline Preserves in South County Segment, and for which no additional mitigation is required for impacts to covered species or their habitats. While the District is not signatory to the MSCP and activities conducted by the District are not covered activities under the MSCP, the Take Authorized designation shows that activities within this parcel do not have an effect on hardline preserve or biological resource core areas of an approved HCP/NCCP. Conclusion Through project design features and reasonable Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMM‐BIO‐1 through AMM‐BIO‐6, and MM‐BIO‐1 and MM‐BIO‐2), the project would have a less than significant impact on sensitive biological resources. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter report, please contact Dale Ritenour at (858) 578‐8964. Sincerely, Dale Ritenour ICF Senior Biologist Appendices Appendix A Figures 1–5 Appendix B Plant Species Observed Appendix C Wildlife Species Observed Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 19 of 25 Appendix D Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential to Occur Tables Appendix E 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey for Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Pump Station References References Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bauder, E. T., and S. McMillan. 1998. Current Distribution and Historical Extent of Vernal Pools in Southern California and Northern Baja California, Mexico. In Ecology, Conservation and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. March. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959. ———. 2022. California Natural Diversity Database. Available: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB#:~:text=The%20California%20Natural%20Diversity%20Database,mapped%20locations%20for%20these%20species. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Eighth Edition). Online Edition. Available: https://rareplants.cnps.org/. Chesser, R. T., K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., D. F. Stotz, B. M. Winger, and K. Winker. 2022. Checklist of North and Middle American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. Available: http://checklist.aou.org/taxa. County of San Diego (County). 1997. Multiple Species Conservation Program: County of San Diego Subarea Plan. Erickson, C., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, 141 Carter Lane, Eureka, California 95503. 196 pp. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame‐Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. ICF International. 2014. Summary of Biological Findings for the Abandoned Waterline and Trestle Bridge Project. November 14. Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on R. F. Holland (1986) Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Sacramento, CA: The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Heritage Program. Rebman, J. P., and M. G. Simpson. 2014. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County, 5th Edition. San Diego, CA: San Diego Natural History Museum and San Diego State University. Reiser, C. H. 2001. Rare Plants of San Diego County. July. Aquafir Press. San Diego Natural History Museum (SDHNM). 2022. Plant Atlas Plant Species on Google Maps. Available: https://sdplantatlas.org/GMap/GMapSpeciesMap.htm. Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge Demolition Project Page 20 of 25 Shiraiwa, K. 2010. The Butterflies of San Diego County. Self‐published. 73pp Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (SSAR). 2022. SSAR North American Species Names Database. Available. https://ssarherps.org/cndb/ Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston and New York. Thomson, R.C., A.N. Wright, and H.B. Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. University of California Press. Tracey, J.A., Madden, M.C., Sebes, J.B., Bloom, P.H., Katzner, T.E., and Fisher, R.N., 2017, Biotelemetery data for golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) captured in coastal southern California, February 2016–February 2017: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 1051, 35 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ds1051. Tremor S., D. Stokes, W. Spencer, J. Diffendorfer, H. Thomas, S Chivers, and P. Unitt. 2017. San Diego County Mammal Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). 2020. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for San Diego, California. Prepared by Soil Survey Staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov. Unitt, Philip. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 39: i–vii, 1–639. Available: http://sdplantatlas.org/BirdAtlas/BirdPages.aspx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. Available: https://cnps.org/wp‐content/uploads/2019/10/Bot‐Cert_US‐Fish‐and‐Wildlife‐Service‐guidelines‐botanical‐inventories‐LR.pdf https://www.fws.gov/ventura/docs/species/protocols/botanicalinventories.pdf. ———. 2014. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Guidelines. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. December 15. Available: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/survey‐guidelines‐for‐quino‐checkerspot‐butterfly.pdf. ———. 2017. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. November 13. ———. 2020. National Wetland Inventory: Wetlands Mapper V2. Available: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. ———. 2021. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Occurrence Data. Digital data layer of spatial locations of observations of federally listed species. Available: https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/gis/cfwogis.html. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990b. California’s Wildlife. Volume 3: Mammals. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Appendix A Figures Figure 1: Regional LocationBiological Resources Letter ReportOtay Water District Trestle Bridge and Abandoned Waterline ± Source: ESRI World Map (2012). 0 4 82 Miles San Bernardino Riverside San Diego Orange Los Angeles Kern InyoTulareKings Ventura Santa Barbara San LuisObispo N e v a d a C a l i f o r n i a Project Site ^_ ± ^_ Project Site 0 0.50.25 Miles Figure 2: Project Location Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Water District Trestle Bridge and Abandoned Waterline BR BR CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS CSS DIST DIST DIST EUC EUC NNG NNG SWS SWS rSWS DIST Figure 3: Vegetation CommunitiesBiological Resources Letter Report Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project¯0 16080 Feet Biological Study Area Potential Impact Area Abandoned Waterline Abandoned Waterline and Trestle BridgeVegetation Bedrock Disturbed Habitat Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Non-Native Grassland Restored Southern Willow Scrub Southern Willow Scrub Eucalyptus Woodland !. ") ") ' !. ") $+$+$+$+$+$+$+$+ ' kj $+ $+ $+ ") $+ $+ $+$+ $+$+$+ $+ $+ $+$+$+ $+$+ $+ kj Figure 4: Special-Status PlantsBiological Resources Letter Report Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project¯0 16080 Feet Biological Study Area Potential Impact Area Abandoned Waterline Abandoned Waterline and Trestle BridgeRare Plant Points !.Ambrosia monogyra $+Bahiopsis laciniata kj Ferocactus viridescens 'Hesperocyparis forbesii ")Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarphaRare Plant Polygons Bahiopsis lacinata Bloomeria clevelandii Ferocactus virdescens Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha ") ")") ") ") ") OWD-3OWD-4 OWD-5 Figure 5: Special-Status Wildlife Biological Resources Letter Report Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project¯0 16080 Feet Abandoned Waterline Abandoned Waterline and Trestle Bridge Biological Study Area Potential Impact AreaSpecial-Status Wildlife Occurrences (2014, 2020, 2022) ")Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) ")Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) ")Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) ")Northern Harrier (Circus hudsonius) ")White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) Sampled Ruts - No Fairy Shrimp City of Chula VistaVernal Pool Preserve - Fenced ! Figure 6: Quino Habitat Assessment Survey ResultsBiological Resources Letter Report Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project¯0 16080 Feet Abandoned Waterline Abandoned Waterline and Trestle Bridge Biological Study Area Potential Impact Area Quino host plant – av oidance City of Chula VistaVernal Pool Preserve Appendix B Plant Species Observed Attachment B. Plant Species Detected Scientific Name Common Name Special Status FERNS Pteridaceae - Brake family Pentagramma triangularis Goldback fern GYMNOSPERMS Cupressaceae - Cypress family Hesperocyparis forbesii Tecate cypress CRPR 1B.1 EUDICOTS Anacardiaceae - Sumac Or Cashew family Malosma laurina Laurel sumac Rhus integrifolia Lemonade berry Asteraceae - Sunflower family Ambrosia monogyra Singlewhorl burrobrush CRPR 2B.2 Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed Artemisia californica California sagebrush Baccharis salicina Emory's baccharis Baccharis sarothroides Broom baccharis Brickellia californica California brickellbush Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus Italian thistle * Centaurea melitensis Tocalote * Corethrogyne filaginifolia Common sand aster Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden woolly sunflower Isocoma menziesii Coastal goldenbush Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha Small-flowered microseris CRPR 4.2 Osmadenia tenella Osmadenia Stephanomeria virgata Rod wire-lettuce Viguiera laciniata San Diego County viguiera CRPR 4.2 Boraginaceae - Borage family Plagiobothrys sp.Popcornflower Brassicaceae - Mustard family Hirschfeldia incana Shortpod mustard * Lepidium nitidum Shining pepper-grass Cactaceae - Cactus family Ferocactus viridescens San Diego barrel cactus CRPR 2B.1 Mammillaria dioica White fishhook cactus Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot family Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush * Salsola tragus Prickly russian thistle * Cistaceae - Rock-rose family Crocanthemum scoparium var. vulgare Common peak rush-rose Crassulaceae - Stonecrop family Crassula connata Pygmyweed Dudleya edulis Ladies fingers Dudleya pulverulenta Chalk dudleya Euphorbiaceae - Spurge family Croton setiger Doveweed Euphorbia polycarpa Many seed spurge Fabaceae - Legume family Acmispon glaber Deerweed Medicago polymorpha California burclover * Geraniaceae - Geranium family Erodium botrys Longbeak filaree * Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree * Lamiaceae - Mint family Salvia apiana White sage Malvaceae - Mallow family Sidalcea sparsifolia Southern checkerbloom Myrtaceae - Myrtle family Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver dollar gum * Nyctaginaceae - Four O'clock family Mirabilis laevis var. crassifolia Coastal wishbone plant Plantaginaceae - Plantain family Plantago erecta Dot seed plantain Polygonaceae - Buckwheat family Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum Leafy California buckwheat Persicaria lapathifolia Willow smartweed Ranunculaceae - Buttercup family Clematis pauciflora Few flowered virgin's bower Rhamnaceae - Buckthorn family Rhamnus crocea Spiny redberry Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Rosaceae - Rose family Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Salicaceae - Willow family Salix gooddingii Goodding's black willow Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Simmondsiaceae - Jojoba family Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba Tamaricaceae - Tamarisk family Tamarix sp.Tamarix Violaceae - Violet family Viola purpurea Purple violet MONOCOTS Agavaceae - Century Plant family Hesperoyucca whipplei Chaparral yucca Arecaceae - Palm family Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm * Liliaceae - Lily family Calochortus weedii var. weedii Weed's mariposa lily Poaceae - Grass family Aristida purpurea var. nealleyi Nealley three-awn Arundo donax Giant reed * Avena barbata Slender wild oat * Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome * Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome * Festuca myuros Rattail fescue * Melica imperfecta Coast range onion grass Melinis repens ssp. repens Natal grass * Muhlenbergia microsperma Littleseed muhly Pennisetum setaceum African fountain grass * Themidaceae - Brodiaea family Bloomeria clevelandii San Diego goldenstar CRPR 1B.1 Bloomeria crocea Common goldenstar Typhaceae - Cattail family Typha sp.Cattail Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Legend Special Status: Federal: FE = Endangered FT = Threatened State: SE = Endangered ST =Threatened *= Non-native or invasive species CRPR – California Rare Plant Rank 1A. Presumed extinct in California and elsewhere 1B. Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A. Presumed extinct in California, more common elsewhere 2B. Rare or Endangered in California, more common elsewhere 3. Plants for which we need more information - Review list 4. Plants of limited distribution - Watch list Threat Ranks .1 - Seriously endangered in California .2 – Fairly endangered in California .3 – Not very endangered in California Appendix C Animal Species Observed Appendix C. Wildlife Species Observed Scientific Name Common Name Special Status VERTEBRATES Reptiles Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard Pituophis catenifer Gophersnake Birds Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite CFP Circus hudsonius Northern Harrier SSC Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird Empidonax difficilis Pacific-slope Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated Flycatcher Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's Vireo FE, SE Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Catherpes mexicanus Canyon Wren Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren Polioptila californica californica Coastal California Gnatcatcher FT, SSC Chamaea fasciata Wrentit Toxostoma redivivum California Thrasher Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Cardellina pusilla Wilson's Warbler Melozone crissalis California Towhee Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark Haemorhous mexicanus House Finch Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Mammals Canis latrans Coyote Procyon lotor Northern Raccoon Scientific Name Common Name Special Status Legend Special Status: Federal: FE = Endangered FT = Threatened State: SE = Endangered ST =Threatened SSC = California Species of Special Concern CFP = California Fully Protected Species *= Non-native or invasive species Appendix D Special Status Plant and Animal Species Potential to Occur Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-1 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Plants San Diego thorn-mint (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) FT’/SE, 1B.1 Annual herb. Prefers friable or broken clay soils in grassy openings in chaparral and coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools; 10-960 m (33-3150 ft). Blooming period: April - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys California adolphia (Adolphia californica) 2B.1 Deciduous shrub. Clay soils in chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 45-740 m (147-2428 ft). Blooming period: December - May Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys San Diego bur-sage (Ambrosia chenopodiifolia) 2B.1 Perennial shrub. Coastal scrub; 55-155 m (178-508 ft). Blooming period: April - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Singlewhorl burrobrush (Ambrosia monogyra) 2B.2 Perennial shrub. Sandy soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Sonoran desert scrub, and washes; 10-500 m (328-1640 ft). Blooming period: August - November Present Suitable habitat present, species observed in the BSA. San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) FE/ 1B.1 Rhizomatous herb. Sandy loam or clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; often in disturbed areas or sometimes alkaline areas. Can occur in creek beds, seasonally dry drainages, and floodplains; 20-415 m (66-1362 ft). Blooming period: April - October Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Otay manzanita (Arctostaphylos otayensis) 1B.2 Evergreen shrub. Chaparral or cismontane woodlands on volcanic rock outcrops; 275-1700 m (902-5576 ft). Blooming period: January - April Low Suitable habitat absent. San Diego sagewort (Artemisia palmeri) 4.2 Deciduous shrub. Sandy soils in mesic areas in chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland; 15-915 m (49-3002 ft). Blooming period: February - September Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-2 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Western spleenwort (Asplenium vespertinum) 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Rocky areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub; 180-1000 m (590-3281 ft). Blooming period: February - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Dean's milk-vetch (Astragalus deanei) 1B.1 Perennial herb. Open shrubby slopes, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian forest, and sandy washes; 75-695 m (246-2279 ft). Blooming period: February - May Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Coulter's saltbush (Atriplex coulteri) 1B.2 Perennial herb. Alkaline or clay soils in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 3-460 m (9-1509 ft). Blooming period: March - October Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys South coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica) 1B.2 Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, playas; 0-140 m (0-459 ft). Blooming period: March - October Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Golden-spined cereus (Bergerocactus emoryi) 2B.2 Perennial stem succulent. Sandy soils in costal scrub, chaparral, and closed-cone coniferous forest, moist ocean breezes may be a key to its habitat requirements; 3-395 m (9-1295 ft). Blooming period: May - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys San Diego goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii) 1B.1 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley grasslands, particularly near mima mound topography or the vicinity of vernal pools; 50 - 465 m (164-1526 ft). Blooming period: April - May Present Observed in suitable habitat on the south side of the Otay River in the BSA. Orcutt's brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii) 1B.1 Bulbiferous herb. Found on mesic, clay, sometimes serpentinite soils in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools; 30-1692 m (98-5550 ft). Blooming period: May - July Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-3 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Brewer's calandrinia (Calandrinia breweri) 4.2 Annual herb. Sandy or loamy soils, disturbed and/or burned sites in chaparral and coastal scrub; 10-1220 m (32-4001 ft). Blooming period: March - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Dunn's mariposa-lily (Calochortus dunnii) SR, 1B.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Gabbroic or metavolcanic soils, or rocky openings in chaparral or grassland/chaparral ecotone, also in closed-cone coniferous forest; 185-1830 m (606-6002 ft). Blooming period: February - June Not Expected Suitable habitat absent. Generally restricted to higher elevation volcanic mountains. Lewis' evening-primrose (Camissoniopsis lewisii) 3 Annual herb. Sandy or clay soils in coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 0-300 m (0-984 ft). Blooming period: March - June Not Expected Generally restricted to sandy coastal areas. Lakeside ceanothus (Ceanothus cyaneus) 1B.2 Evergreen shrub. Closed-cone coniferous forest, dense chaparral; 235-755 m (771-2543 ft). Blooming period: April - June Not Expected Suitable habitat absent. Outside of the restricted range of this species. Otay Mountain ceanothus (Ceanothus otayensis) 1B.2 Perennial evergreen shrub. Metavolcanic or gabbroic chaparral; 600-1100 m (1968-3608 ft). Blooming period: January - April Low Generally restricted to metavolcanic soils not present in the BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Southern mountain misery (Chamaebatia australis) 4.2 Evergreen shrub. Gabbroic or metavolcanic chaparral; 300-1020 m (984-3345 ft). Blooming period: November - May Low Generally restricted to metavolcanic soils not present in the BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Long-spined spineflower (Chroizanthe polygonoides var. longispina) 1B.2 Annual herb. Clay lenses, largely devoid of shrubs in chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools; 30-1530 m (98-5018 ft). Blooming period: April - July Not Expected Required soils absent. Seaside cistanthe (Cistanthe maritima) 4.2 Annual herb. Sandy soils in coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 5-300 m (16-984 ft). Blooming period: February - August Not Expected Coastal species Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-4 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Delicate clarkia (Clarkia delicata) 1B.2 Annual herb. Oak woodlands and chaparral, often on gabbroic soils; 235-1000 m (770-3280 ft). Blooming period: April - June Not Expected Suitable habitat absent. San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri) 1B.2 Perennial shrub. Rocky , gabbroic, or metavolcanic areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 120-1075 m (393-3526 ft). Blooming period: March - July Low Generally restricted to metavolcanic soils not present in the BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Summer holly (Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia) 1B.2 Evergreen shrub. Chaparral and cismontane woodland; 30-790 m (98-2591 ft). Blooming period: April - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Small-flowered morning glory (Convolvulus simulans) 4.2 Annual herb. Friable clay soils or serpentine seeps in chaparral openings, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 30-700 m (98-2297 ft). Blooming period: March - July Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys San Diego sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. incana) 1B.1 Perennial herb. Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, and coastal scrub; 3-115 m (9-377 ft). Blooming period: June - September Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Snake cholla (Cylindropuntia californica var. californica) 1B.1 Stem succulent. Chaparral and coastal scrub, typically on xeric hillsides; 30-150 m (98-492 ft). Blooming period: April - May Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) FT/SE, 1B.1 Annual herb. Clay soils in coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; 25-300 m (82-984 ft). Blooming period: May - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis) 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 50-500 m (164-1640 ft). Blooming period: January - July Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-5 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Orcutt's bird's-beak (Dicranostegia orcuttiana) 2B.1 Hemiparasitic annual herb. Coastal scrub, seasonally dry drainages, uplands adjacent to riparian habitat; 10-350 m (32-1148 ft). Blooming period: March - September Not Expected Generally restricted to metavolcanic soils not present in the BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegata) 1B.2 Perennial herb. Clay soils in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools; 3-580 m (9-1903 ft). Blooming period: April - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Palmer's goldenbush (Ericamerica palmeri var. palmeri) 1B.1 Evergreen shrub. Coastal drainages, in mesic chaparral or in coastal sage scrub; below 600 m (1969 ft). Blooming period: August - October (uncommon in July) Low Marginal habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) FE/SE, 1B.1 Annual/perennial herb. Mesic soils in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools; 20-620 m (65-2034 ft). Blooming period: April - June Low Suitable soils present but no vernal pools present in BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera) 2B.2 Perennial shrub. Rocky areas in coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, and Mojavean desert scrub; 10-500 m (32-1640 ft). Blooming period: December - October Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens) 2B.1 Stem succulent. Sandy to rocky areas; chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; 3-450 m (9-1476 ft). Blooming period: May - June Present 34 individuals detected within coastal sage scrub in the BSA. Mexican flannelbush (Fremontodendron mexicanum) FE/SR, 1B.1 Evergreen shrub. Gabbroic, metavolcanic, or serpentine soils in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and cismontane woodland; 10-716 m (32-2349 ft). Blooming period: March - June Not Expected Suitable habitat absent. Desert bedstraw (Galium proliferum) 2B.2 Annual herb. Rocky or limestone carbonate areas in Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean desert scrub, and Pinyon and Juniper woodland; 1190-1630 m (3903-5346 ft). Blooming period: March - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-6 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Palmer's grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri) 4.2 Annual herb. Clay soils in chaparral, grasslands, coastal sage scrub; 20-955 m (65 to 3132 ft). Blooming period: March - May Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii) 1B.1 Perennial evergreen tree. Clay, gabbroic, or metavolcanic soils within closed-cone coniferous forest and chaparral; 80-1500 m (262-4921 ft). Present 2 individuals detected within the BSA. Graceful Tarplant (Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata) 4.2 Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 60-1100 m (196-3600 ft). Blooming period: May - November Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Otay Mountain lotus (Hosackia crassifolia var. otayensis) 1B.1 Perennial herb. Metavolcanic chaparral, often in disturbed areas; 380-1005 m (1246-3296 ft). Blooming period: May - August Not Expected Generally restricted to metavolcanic soils not present in the BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens) 1B.2 Perennial shrub. Chaparral and in sandy coastal scrub, often in sandy disturbed areas; 10-135 m (33-443 ft). Blooming period: April - November Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys. Common species observed in BSA; this conspicuous variety was not observed. San Diego marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana) 2B.2 Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps, wetland areas, and playas; 10-500 m (32-1640 ft). Blooming period: April - October Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Mesic soils in coastal dunes, alkaline seeps in meadows and seeps, and coastal salt marshes and swamps; 3-900 m (9-2953 ft). Blooming period: May - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri) 1B.1 Annual herb. Coastal salt marsh, coastal salt swamps, playas, vernal pools; 1-1220 m (3-4001 ft). Blooming period: February - June Not Expected Coastal species not expected in BSA. Gander's pitcher sage (Lepechinia ganderi) 1B.3 Perennial shrub. Gabbroic or metavolcanic soils in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 305-1005 m (1000-3296 ft). Blooming period: June - July Not Expected Generally restricted to metavolcanic soils not present in the BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-7 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Robinson's pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii) 4.3 Annual herb. Openings in chaparral and sage scrub; below 885 m (2900 ft). Blooming Period: January - July Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum) 4.2 Perennial bulbiferous herb. Openings in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and riparian woodland; 30-1800 m (98-5904 ft). Blooming period: March - August Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys California box-thorn (Lycium californicum) 4.2 Perennial shrub. Coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub; 5-150 m (16-492 ft). Blooming period: December - August Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Small-flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha) 4.2 annual herb. Coastal scrub, grassland, and vernal pool periphery. 15-1070 m (50-3510 ft) Blooming Period. March - May Present Observed within the BSA Felt-leaved monardella (Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata) 1B.2 Rhizomatous herb. Chaparral and cismontane woodland; 300-1575 m (984-5040 ft). Blooming Period: June - August Not Expected Generally restricted to metavolcanic soils not present in the BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Jennifer's monardella (Monardella stoneana) 1B.2 Perennial herb. Usually in rocky, intermittent streambeds in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian scrub; 10-790 m (32-2591 ft). Blooming period: June - September Low Potentially suitable habitat present. Generally restricted to Otay Mountain. Not observed during rare plant surveys Little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus) 3.1 Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland, and alkaline vernal pools; 20-640 m (65-2100 ft). Blooming period: March - June Not Expected Suitable soils present but no vernal pools present in BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Mud nama (Nama stenocarpum) 2B.2 Annual/perennial herb. Marshes and swamps, also riverbanks and lake margins; 5-500 m (16-1640 ft). Blooming period: January - July Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) FT/ 1B.1 Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, assorted freshwater marshes and swamps, playas, and vernal pools; 30-655 m (98-2149 ft). Blooming period: April - June Not Expected Suitable soils present but no vernal pools present in BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys California adder's-tongue (Ophioglossum californicum) 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Mesic areas in chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands, and the margins of vernal pools; 60-525. Blooming period: December - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-8 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica) FE/CE, 1B.1 Annual herb. Vernal pools; 15-660 m (49-2165 ft). Blooming period: April - August Not Expected Suitable soils present but no vernal pools present in BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Golden-Rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta aurea ssp. aurea) 4.2 Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland; 80-1850 m (262-6068 ft). Blooming period: March - July. Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Woolly chaparral pea (Pickeringia montana var. tomentosa) 4.3 Evergreen shrub. Gabbroic, granitic, or clay soils in chaparral; 0-1700 m (0-5577 ft). Blooming period: May - August Not Expected Generally restricted to metavolcanic soils not present in the BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Chaparral rein orchid (Piperia cooperi) 4.2 Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland; 15-1585 m (49-5200 ft). Blooming period: March - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Otay Mesa mint (Pogogyne nudiuscula) FE/CE, 1B.1 Annual herb. Vernal pools; 90-250 (295-820 ft). Blooming period: May - July Not Expected Suitable soils present but no vernal pools present in BSA. Not observed during rare plant surveys Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) 1B.1 Perennial evergreen shrub. Sandy or clay loam in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub; 15-400 m (49-1312 ft.). Blooming period: February - August Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii) 4.2 Deciduous tree. Cismontane woodland, chaparral, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland; 50-1300 m (164-4265 ft). Blooming period: March - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Coulter's matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri) 4.2 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Chaparral and coastal scrub; often in burned areas; 20-1200 m (65-3936 ft). Blooming period: March - July Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia) CE, 2B.1 Deciduous shrub. Chaparral and coastal scrub; 150-160 m (492-524 ft). Blooming period: January - June Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Munz's sage (Salvia munzii) 2B.2 Evergreen shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 120-1065 m (393-3493 ft). Blooming period: February - April Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-9 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Chaparral ragwort (Senecio aphanactis) 2B.2 Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and alkaline flats; 15-800 m (49-2624 ft.). Blooming period: January - April Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys Purple stemodia (Stemodia durantifolia) 2B.1 Perennial herb. Population wide, along minor creeks and seasonal drainages, often in mesic, sandy soils in Sonoran desert scrub. Within the coastal zone in streams and creeks, typically slow moving rocky streams; 180-300 m (590-984 ft). Blooming period: January - December Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys San Diego County needle grass (Stipa diegoensis) 4.2 Perennial herb. Rocky, often mesic soils within chaparral and coastal scrub; 10-800 m (32-2624 ft). Blooming period: February - June Present Observed within the BSA Laguna Mountains jewel-flower (Streptanthus bernardinus) 4.3 Perennial herb. Chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest; 670-2500 m (2198-8202 ft). Blooming period: May - August Not expected Primarily a montane species Parry's tetracoccus (Tetracoccus dioicus) 1B.2 Deciduous shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 165-1000 m (541-3280 ft). Blooming period: April - May Low Suitable habitat present. Not observed during rare plant surveys San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata) 4.2 Perennial shrub. Chaparral and coastal scrub; 10-750 m (33-2461 ft). Blooming period: February - August Present Species detected in Diegan coastal sage scrub in the BSA. Invertebrates San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) FE Vernal pools. All known localities are below 701 m (2,300 ft) and are within 64 km (40 miles) of the Pacific Ocean. Absent Dry season surveys confirmed absence in 3 road ruts in BSA Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) FE Vernal pools and cattle ponds. In San Diego County, all populations are within 15 kilometers of the coast. Absent Ruts in BSA were not potentially suitable habitat. No cysts found in dry season surveys in 2022. Monarch - California overwintering population (Danaus plexippus pop. 1) FC Overwinters in eucalyptus or other tall trees within ~1 mile of the Pacific Ocean from Santa Barbara south to Baja California Norte Not Expected Site is over 5 miles from the coast and is therefore unsuitable as overwintering habitat for monarch. Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-10 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) FE Inhabits openings on clay soils within or in the vicinity of shrublands, grasslands, meadows, vernal pools, and lake margins. Closely tied to its larval host plant, dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta) or owl’s clover (Orthocarpus purpurescens). Assumed Present Suitable host plants present. Several known populations of Quino found within 1 km of the BSA. Hermes copper (Lycaena hermes) FT Mature spiny redberry host plant (Rhamnus crocea) surrounded by California buckwheat nectaring resources. Not Expected No suitable spiny redberry habitat present in the BSA. Reptiles and Amphibians Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) FE/SSC Exposed shallow pools with a sand or gravel base are used for breeding. Breeding pools must occur in the vicinity (ca. 10-100 m) of a braided sandy channel with shorelines or central bars made of stable, sandy terraces. Not Expected No suitable breeding habitat present in the BSA. Not known to breed in the Otay River (CFWO 2022). Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) SSC Temporary rainpools with water temperatures between 9°C and <30°C that last at least 3 weeks. Low No vernal pool breeding habitat present in the BSA. Blainville’s horned lizard (Phyrnosoma blanvillii) SSC Grasslands, brushlands, woodlands, and open coniferous forest with sandy or loose soil; requires abundant ant colonies for foraging High Suitable habitat present. Known from the vicinity of the BSA (CDFW 2020). Coastal tiger whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) SSC Found in a wide variety of habitats in cismontane southern California including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, riparian, woodlands, and rocky areas. High Suitable habitat present. Known from the vicinity of the BSA (CDFW 2020). Red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber ruber) SSC Occurs from sea level to 914 m (3,000 ft) in chaparral, woodland, and arid desert habitats with rocky areas and dense vegetation. High Suitable habitat present. Known from the vicinity of the BSA (CDFW 2020). Two-striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii) SSC Inhabits perennial and intermittent streams with rocky beds and bordered by willow thickets or other dense vegetation High Suitable habitat present in the Otay River below the BSA. Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-11 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Birds Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) BAGEA/CFP Nest on cliff ledges or trees on steep slopes. Forage in grasslands, sage scrub or broken chaparral. Moderate No potential to nest in the BSA. Known to forage on Otay Mountain (Tracey et al. 2017). Moderate potential to utilize the BSA for foraging. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) BAGEA/CE, CFP Nests in trees near rivers and reservoirs. Feeds on fish and carrion Not Expected No potential to nest in the BSA. No suitable foraging habitat. Northern harrier (Circus hudsonius) SSC Grasslands and marshes. Nests are on the ground and typically concealed within a marsh or other dense vegetation. Present Suitable nesting habitat present in the BSA. Has been observed in the BSA. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) SSC, CFP Open grasslands, agricultural areas, wetlands, and oak woodlands. Their primary source of food is the California vole. It typically forages in open undisturbed habitats and nests in the top of a dense oak, willow or other large tree. Present Suitable nesting habitat present in the BSA. Has been observed in the BSA. Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) SSC Resident and migratory. Prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands, coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas. They require large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows. They use rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover and also known to use pipes, culverts, and nest boxes where burrows are scarce. Limited and declining nesting locations in San Diego County. Low No suitable habitat present in the BSA Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) FE/SE Neotropical migrant. Breeds in denes, multi-layered riparian woodlands along rivers, streams, or other wetlands. They usually nest within close proximity of water or very saturated soil. Not Expected Riparian habitat in the BSA is not suitable habitat for this species; lacks structural diversity necessary for this species. Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-12 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus) SSC Neotropical migrant. Breeds and forages in open woodlands and park-like setting including oak woodlands, open riparian woodland, golf courses, and cemeteries. Not Expected Suitable habitat absent. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) SSC Found near grassland, open sage scrub and chaparral, and desert scrub. They nest in dense vegetation adjacent to their open foraging habitats. Moderate Suitable habitat present. Not observed in the BSA. Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) FE/SE Neotropical migrant. Riparian thickets either near water or in dry portions of river bottoms; nests along margins of bushes and forages low to the ground Present Suitable breeding habitat present under the trestle in the BSA. Observed in 2014. Riparian habitat in the Otay River is assumed to be occupied. San Diego cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) SSC Thickets of large and/or dense mature cactus, primarily prickly pear (Opuntia spp.) and cholla (Cylindropuntia spp.). Sensitive subspecies occurs in San Diego and Orange Counties. Not Expected Suitable breeding habitat absent. No large cactus present in the BSA. Clark's marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris clarkae) SSC Coastal southern California subspecies breeds in freshwater and brackish marshes mainly along and near the coast. Spreads more widely during non-breeding into salt marshes and wet grassy areas. Not Expected Suitable habitat absent. No suitable marsh habitat present in the BSA. Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) FT, SSC Prefer open scrubby habitats such as coastal sage scrub and some forms of chaparral. Present Suitable habitat present. Species observed in the BSA. Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) SSC Localized and uncommon in structurally diverse grassland usually with native grasses. Moderate Known from Otay Mesa. The small grasslands present in the BSA are marginal habitat for this species. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) CE Generally found in extensive stands of riparian woodland. Not Expected Riparian habitat in the BSA is not suitable habitat for this species; lacks structural diversity necessary for this species. Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-13 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) CT, SSC Breeds near fresh water, preferably in emergent wetland with large, dense stands of cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, tall herbs. Feeds in grassland and cropland habitats. Low No suitable nesting habitat present in the Otay River in or around the BSA. Limited foraging habitat present in the BSA. Yellow-breasted chat (Ictera virens) SSC Dense riparian woodland. High Suitable breeding habitat present under the trestle in the BSA. Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia) SSC Riparian scrub and woodlands. High Suitable breeding habitat present under the trestle in the BSA. Common in suitable habitat in SW San Diego County rivers. Mammals Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) SSC Throughout So. Cal. from coast to mixed conifer forest; grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, & forest; most common in open, dry habitats w/ rocky areas for roosting; yearlong resident in most of range. Roosts in rock crevices, caves, mine shafts, under bridges, in buildings and tree hollows. Roosting – Moderate Foraging – Low Marginally suitable roosting and foraging habitat is present on site. Not detected during focused surveys. No bat colonies in or directly adjacent to the structure. Mexican long-tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana) SSC Likes desert canyons, arid mountain ranges. Roosts by day in caves, mines, or buildings. Roosting – Low Foraging – Low Not detected during focused surveys. No bat colonies in or directly adjacent to the structure. Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) SSC Throughout Cal. in all but sub-alpine & alpine habitats yearlong; most abundant in mesic habitats; Roosts – caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other man-made structures. Roosting – Moderate Foraging – Moderate Suitable roosting and foraging habitat occurs in the survey area. Not detected during focused surveys. No bat colonies in or directly adjacent to the structure. Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus) SSC Primarily a cliff-dwelling species for breeding. Found foraging in a variety of habitats, from dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open ponderosa pine forest, grassland, montane meadows, and agricultural areas. Roosting – Low Foraging – Moderate Suitable habitat present. Not detected during focused surveys. No bat colonies in or directly adjacent to the structure. Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-14 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) SSC Usually among dense foliage, in forests and wooded areas, making long migrations from the northern latitudes to warmer climes for winter, sometimes hibernates in tree hollows or woodpecker holes. Roosting – Low Foraging – Low Marginal habitat present. Not detected during focused surveys. No bat colonies in or directly adjacent to the structure. Pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus) SSC Lives in deserts and sage scrub, roosts in rocky crevices. Roosting – Moderate Foraging – Moderate Suitable habitat present. Not detected during focused surveys. No bat colonies in or directly adjacent to the structure. Bryant’s (San Diego desert) woodrat (Neotoma bryanti) SSC Variety of shrub and desert habitats primarily associated with rock outcroppings, boulders, cacti, or areas of dense undergrowth. Moderate No nests observed during surveys. Locally common in suitable rocky habitat present in the BSA. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) SSC Mostly found on the coastal side of our local mountains in open habitats, usually avoiding dense stands of chaparral or woodlands. Moderate Suitable habitat present near the BSA. Limited suitable habitat Appendix D. Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Potential for Occurrence Tables Otay Water District Otay Trestle Bridge Demolition Project D-15 Biological Resources Letter Report Common Name (Scientific Name) Sensitivity Code & Status Habitat Preference/Requirements Potential for occurrence Rationale Status: Federal FE = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. FC = listed as candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. State CE = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. CT = listed as threatened under California Endangered Species Act. SSC = listed as a California Species of Special Concern. CFP= listed as a California Fully Protected Species SR= listed as Rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act CRPR—California Rare Plant Rank 1A = Presumed extinct in California and elsewhere 1B = Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2A = Presumed extinct in California, more common elsewhere 2B = Rare or Endangered in California, more common elsewhere 3 = Plants for which we need more information - Review list 4 = Plants of limited distribution - Watch list Threat Ranks .1 - Seriously endangered in California .2 – Fairly endangered in California .3 – Not very endangered in California References: Special Status plant listing information from CDFW 2022b. Nomenclature and plant descriptions from: CNPS Online Inventory (CNPS 2022), Calflora.org, Baldwin 2012, and Reiser 2001. Range information from CNDDB (CDFW 2022a), CNPS 2022, and SDNHM Plant Atlas Project 2022. Special Status wildlife information from CDFW 2022c. Nomenclature and invertebrate descriptions from Eriksen and Belk 1999 and Shiraiwa 2010. Nomenclature and vertebrate descriptions from Bradley et al. 2014, Chesser et al. 2021, SSAR 2022, Stebbins 2003, Thompson et al. 2016, Tremor et al. 2017, Unitt 2004, and Zeiner et al. 1990. Appendix E 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey for Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Pump Station References 2022 DRY SEASON FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEY FOR TRESTLE BRIDGE REMOVAL AND HIGH HEAD PUMP STATION ROAD REPAIR P REPARED FOR: Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, CA 91978 Contact: Ms. Lisa Coburn‐Boyd, Environmental Compliance Specialist (619) 670‐2219 P REPARED BY: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 July 2022 ICF. 2022. 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey for Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Pump Station Road Repair. July. 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Road Repair i July 2022 Contents Page 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Soil Collection ............................................................................................................................. 1 2.2 Soil Processing and Analysis ....................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 2 4.0 References ........................................................................................................................................ 3 5.0 Certification ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Appendix A USFWS Notification ......................................................................................................... 1 Appendix B USFWS Dry Season Data Sheet ......................................................................................... 6 Figure Follows Page 1. Regional Location ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Vicinity .......................................................................................................................................... 1 3. Sampled Pools ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Road Repair 1 July 2022 1.0 Introduction This dry season fairy shrimp survey was conducted to support two projects proposed by Otay Water District in the East Otay Mesa/Otay River area: the Trestle Bridge Removal Project and repair of bypass road at the High Head Pump Station (Figure 1). The proposed Trestle Bridge Removal Project consists of the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of an abandoned 24-inch water pipeline in the east Otay Mesa area over the Otay River (Figure 2). The existing water pipeline is no longer in service and the District intends to remove the trestle and pipeline to address liability concerns. Three shallow road ruts (OWD-3 through -5; see Figure 3) were observed in established dirt roads approaching the work areas and were sampled in this survey. Of these two were on the road heading upslope, to the south of the Otay River, and one on County Park land in a flat area adjacent to recent campground construction. The High Head Pump Station is northwest of the George Bailey Detention center on east Otay Mesa (Figure 2). The dirt road bypassing the pump station on the eastern slope requires stabilization. Two shallow ruts were observed and were sampled (OWD-1 and OWD-2). The goal of this survey was to determine presence or absence of listed large branchiopods (fairy shrimp) in seasonally inundated depressions (Figure 3), for use in avoiding take of listed large branchiopods. The listed large branchiopods known from freshwater in southern San Diego County are San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni). 2.0 Methods ICF conducted protocol level dry season surveys on five seasonally inundated basins (road ruts) located within east Otay Mesa vicinity (Figure 3). Survey methodology follows the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (Guidelines; USFWS 2017) as described below. Prior to initiating the surveys, a pre-survey notification letter was sent to the USFWS Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office informing intent to conduct a protocol dry season survey for listed fairy shrimp (Appendix A). 2.1 Soil Collection On May 19, 2022, fairy shrimp biologists Brian Lohstroh (Permit# TE- 063608-6) collected soil samples for the dry season survey. Soil samples were collected when seasonally inundated depressions were dry. A hand trowel was used to collect soil samples from the top 1-3 centimeters of depressions soil. Whenever possible, soil samples were collected in chunks and the trowel was used to pry up intact chunks of sediment. Loosening the soil by raking or shoveling was avoided as such methods can damage cysts. Ten samples of approximately 50-milliliter (ml) aliquots were removed at each small rut (for a total of 0.5 liter/ponded area), ensuring that no more than 10% of the sampled basin’s surface area was disturbed. Soil samples were collected mainly from the lowest topographic areas within the sampled features. Representative photos of the ruts are included in Appendix B. Figure 1: Regional LocationOtay Water District Projects ± Source: ESRI World Map (2012). 0 4 82 Miles San Bernardino Riverside San Diego Orange Los Angeles Kern InyoTulareKings Ventura Santa Barbara San LuisObispo N e v a d a C a l i f o r n i a Project Site ^_ Figure 2Project Location \\PDCCITRDSGIS01\Projects_1\OtayWaterDistrict\00198_20_Trestles_Demolition\Figures\Bio\Fig2_Loc.mxd; User: 35528; Date: 7/25/2022 0 2,0001,000 Feet Source: USGS-Otay Mesa 7.5' Quad1:24,000[N San Diego County, CA Trestle BridgeRemoval Project Mexico High Head PumpStation Road Repair Otay Lakes County Park Otay Lakes Regional Park OWD-3 OWD-4 OWD-5 OWD-1OWD-2 Figure 3Basins Dry Sampled in 2022Otay Water District¯0 100 20050 Feet Trestle Bridge Removal Project Footprint Sampled Basins - No Shrimp Cysts Detected \\ P D C C I T R D S G I S 0 1 \ P r o j e c t s _ 1 \ O t a y W a t e r D i s t r i c t \ 0 0 1 9 8 _ 2 0 _ T r e s t l e s _ D e m o l i t i o n \ F i g u r e s \ B i o \ F i g 3 _ 2 0 2 2 D r y S a m p l e d B a s i n s . m x d ; U s e r : 3 5 5 2 8 ; D a t e : 7 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 2 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Road Repair 2 July 2022 2.2 Soil Processing and Analysis Soil samples were processed by ICF fairy shrimp biologist and USFWS permitted cyst-identifier Dale Ritenour (Permit# TE-58888A-2.1) in accordance with the Guidelines. The soil samples were measured into ten individual plastic containers. These samples were hydrated in tap water then washed through a set of sieves. Material passing through a Number 45 (355 micrometer) USA Standard Testing Sieve, A.S.T.M.E.-11 specification was caught on a Number 70 (212 micrometer) Sieve. The 355-micrometer sieve allowed the passage of cysts while the 212- micrometer sieves was selected as the appropriate size to collect cysts from large branchiopods whose ranges include the study area in southern San Diego County, consisting of San Diego fairy shrimp, Lindahl’s fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahil), and Riverside fairy shrimp. The 212-micrometer sample material was rinsed into a container with approximately 200 milliliters of a saturated brine solution to float organic material, including fairy shrimp cysts. The material floating on the brine was decanted onto a paper filter. The organic material collected on the paper was examined under a stereo zoom microscope. Distinctive fairy shrimp cysts were counted if present. All sieves were soaked in a bleach solution and then thoroughly cleaned after completion of the procedure for each depression, to ensure no cysts adhered to the surfaces of the sieves. Fairy shrimp cysts would be identified to the genus level through microscope examination, if they were observed. Streptocephalus cysts can be discerned from Branchinecta cysts based on cyst surface characteristics. Riverside fairy shrimp is the only member of the Streptocephalus genus known from San Diego County; therefore any observed Streptocephalus cysts would be accepted as Riverside fairy shrimp. Branchinecta sandiegonensis and B. lindahil are both known to occur in the Otay region. Their cysts are similar in appearance and have partial overlap in size and may not be conclusively separated under the microscope. Therefore, if Branchinecta cysts were observed, a wet season survey would be needed to confirm which Branchinecta species were present in the depressions. 3.0 Results and Discussion No fairy shrimp cysts were observed in samples from any of the five sampled depressions in the 2022 dry season survey (Table 1 and Appendix C). Table 1. Dry Season Sampling Results Basin Shrimp cysts species observed Total # of cysts observed OWD‐1 None 0 OWD‐2 None 0 OWD‐3 None 0 OWD‐4 None 0 OWD‐5 None 0 The sampled ruts have no potential to support Riverside fairy shrimp. Riverside fairy shrimp require a minimum of 30 days of ponding to reach maturity and produce a sustaining population (Eriksen and Belk 1999). Riverside fairy shrimp are typically found in stock ponds, detention basins, and other large pools, though have been observed on Otay Mesa in relatively small (5 square meter) but deep basins on heavy clay soils in vernal pool preserves and dirt bike jump depressions (Ritenour pers. obsv.). The ruts sampled for these projects were very small (<1 square meter) and shallow (<10 cm deep) features with limited watersheds. Without large size, extended depth, and/or 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Trestle Bridge Removal and High Head Road Repair 3 July 2022 uncommonly large watersheds, basins do not have hydroperiod and ponding extended long enough to support the life cycle of Riverside fairy shrimp. All five of the sampled road ruts are shallow and isolated features, which made them unlikely to support fairy shrimp. The sampled ruts were assessed to have low potential to support San Diego fairy shrimp prior to sampling, but this dry season survey was conducted to provide information on potential occupancy. San Diego fairy shrimp are known from vernal pool preserves in the vicinity, and well as large basins on terraces below in the Otay River Valley, so the potential was not discounted. In the Otay Mesa region, fairy shrimp are frequently found within road ruts, as mud carried on vehicles can move cysts and introduce the species into new habitat, as well as some potential for cysts to be moved by waterfowl, shorebirds, or other wildlife. The vernal pool preserves in the vicinity of these two projects are fenced, which vastly reduces potential for vehicular transmission from vernal pools into road ruts within the project sites. Because of the lack of cysts in these ruts, the ruts are expected to no be occupied habitat of fairy shrimp. 4.0 References Erickson, C. and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, 141 Carter Lane, Eureka, California 95503. 196 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. November 13. 5.0 Certification We certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represent my work. July 26, 2022 Dale Ritenour (Permit No. TE-58888A-2.1) Date Vernal Pool Biologist Author and USFWS Approved Cyst Identifier July 26, 2022 Brian Lohstroh (Permit No. TE- 063608-6) Date Vernal Pool Biologist Soil Collection Appendix A USFWS Notification 525 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA +1.858.578.8964 +1.844.545.2301 fax icf.com May 11, 2022 Ms. Stacey Love Recovery Permit Coordinator Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: 15-Day Notice for Protocol Dry Season Surveys for Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods for Otay Water District Areas Dear Ms. Love: Otay Water District has requested that ICF conduct dry season fairy shrimp surveys for listed vernal pool branchiopods within road ruts at two sites. Both sites are at the edge of Otay Mesa, San Diego County (Figure 1). Project Area 1 is situated approximately 0.5 mile south of the Lower Otay Lake, northwest of the George F. Bailey Detention Facility, and north of the OWD Roll Reservoir. Project Area 2 is the dirt road adjacent to the High Head Pump station immediately northeast of Roll Reservoir. Both sites are located within the Otay Mesa U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5‐minute quadrangle map (Figure 2). Sampling will be conducted on a total of approximately four road ruts in established dirt roads. The dry season survey will be conducted according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Survey Guidelines for Listed Large Brachiopods (USFWS Rev. Nov 13, 2017). Soil will be collected by permitted fairy shrimp biologist Brian Lohstroh (TE‐063608‐6). Soil processing and cyst analysis will be conducted by Dale Ritenour (TE‐58888A‐2.1), a biologist who holds a valid 10(a)1(A) recovery permit for the listed large branchiopods with additional terms conditions included in his permit specifically for conducting processing, isolating, and identifying listed large branchiopod. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Dale Ritenour TE-58888A-2.1 (858) 444-3958 Dale.ritenour@icf.com Attachments: Figure 1 Figure 2 Appendix B Representative Photographs 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report Appendix B Photo 1 Representative overview of OWD-1 adjacent to High Head Pump Station Photographer: B. Lohstroh May 19, 2022 Photo 2 Representative overview of OWD-2 adjacent to High Head Pump Station. Photographer: B. Lohstroh May 19, 2022 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Survey Report Appendix B Photo 3 Representative overview of OWD-3 Photographer: B. Lohstroh May 19, 2022 Photo 4 Representative overview of OWD-4. Photographer: B. Lohstroh May 19, 2022 2022 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Report Survey Appendix B Photo 5 Representative overview of OWD-5 next to new Otay Lakes Campground site Photographer: B. Lohstroh May 19, 2022 Appendix C USFWS Dry Season Data Sheet Appendix B Cultural Resources Constraints Assessment CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY FOR THE I.D. 7 OTAY TRESTLE DEMOLITION PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P R E P A R E D F O R : Otay Water District 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard Spring Valley, California 91978-2096 Contact: Lisa Coburn-Boyd 619.670.2219 P R E P A R E D BY: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 Contact: Patrick McGinnis 858.444.3947 July 2021 ICF. 2021. Cultural Resources Survey for the I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project, San Diego County, California. July. (ICF #198.20). Prepared for Otay Water District, Spring Valley, CA. Author(s): Patrick McGinnis, MA, RPA and Katherine Sinsky, MA, RPA Consulting Firm: ICF 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 858.444.3928 Client: Otay Water District Report Date: July 2021 Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for the I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project, San Diego County, California Type of Study: Phase I Field Survey and Impacts Assessment New Sites: Otay Trestle Updated Sites: CA-SDI-10668 USGS Quadrangle: Otay Mesa, California: 7.5' series (1:24,000) Acreage: 5.1 acres, pedestrian surveyed Keywords: Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory This page intentionally left blank. Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project ES-1 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Executive Summary This report presents the results of a cultural resources survey and evaluation for the I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project in Otay Valley, San Diego County, California. The I.D. 7 Otay Trestle and Pipeline Demolition is a Capital Improvement Project (P2460) for Otay Water District (OWD) consisting of the demolition of a steel trestle and removal of a water pipeline in Otay Mesa. Constructed in the 1960s, the north/south-trending steel trestle holds a 24-inch pipeline that crosses the Otay River. The pipeline was replaced by the Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline in 2001. The trestle also carries a high pressure gas line that had supplied the 870-1 Pump Station, which previously prevented the demolition of the trestle. San Diego Gas & Electric Company abandoned this gas line in 2017 and replaced it with a feed from the south. The existing water pipeline is no longer in service, and OWD intends to remove the trestle and pipeline to address liability concerns. The pipeline is located just south of the City of San Diego Otay Water Treatment Plant and the Lower Otay Reservoir. The survey and evaluation was completed to satisfy requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, 15000 et seq.), which require agencies to evaluate their projects for the potential to cause significant impacts on archaeological resources. A records review revealed that one archaeological site has been documented as partially intersecting the project area, site CA-SDI-10668. The review showed 14 additional previously recorded historic and prehistoric sites within a 0.25-mile buffer of the project location. These sites are not expected to be impacted by proposed project activities. ICF archaeologists Katherine Sinsky, MA, RPA, and Hector Galvez, BA, performed a pedestrian survey and inventory of the project area on June 18, 2021. The survey did not identify any new archaeological resources and did not relocate the existing site in the project area. If unanticipated discoveries are made during construction, ICF recommends that mitigation measure Cul-2D, as identified in the 2015 Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report, be implemented. Mitigation measure Cul-2D outlines procedures for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities. Otay Water District Executive Summary Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project ES-2 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 This page intentionally left blank. Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project i July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Contents Page Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Project Area ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Regulatory Context .............................................................................................................................. 1-4 State Regulations .......................................................................................................................... 1-4 Local Regulations .......................................................................................................................... 1-5 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................... 1-5 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 1-5 Flora .............................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Fauna ............................................................................................................................................. 1-6 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................................... 1-6 Precontact Setting ......................................................................................................................... 1-6 Ethnographic Setting ..................................................................................................................... 1-8 Historical Setting ........................................................................................................................... 1-9 Chapter 2 Native American Outreach and Literature Review ............................................................. 2-1 Chapter 3 Research Design ................................................................................................................ 3-1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Expectations ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 3-2 Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory ..................................................................................... 3-2 Chapter 4 Results .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory ........................................................................................... 4-1 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 5-1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Recommendations............................................................................................................................... 5-1 Chapter 6 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 6-1 Appendix A California DPR 523 Forms Appendix B Native American Consultation Appendix C Cultural Resources Locations Map (Confidential) Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project ii July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Tables and Figures Table Page 1 Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Area ................................................................... 2-2 Figure Page 1 Project Vicinity ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Project Location.................................................................................................................................................... 1-3 Photos Page 1 Overview of access route and Otay Valley facing west ........................................................................ 4-1 2 Bridge crossing over canyon, facing north ................................................................................................ 4-2 3 Overview of project area, facing south ....................................................................................................... 4-3 Acronyms and Abbreviations AMSL above mean sea level BP before present CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CRHR California Register of Historical Resources NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places OWD Otay Water District PRC Public Resources Code project I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project SCIC South Coastal Information Center SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company USGS U.S. Geological Survey Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-1 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Chapter 1 Introduction ICF was contracted to assist the Otay Water District (OWD) with the preparation of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey report for the I.D. 7 Otay Mesa Trestle Demolition Project, in Otay Valley, San Diego County. OWD proposes to demolish an existing aboveground pipeline and bridge that currently supports abandoned water and gas lines that span the Otay River. This survey report included a records search of the survey area from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), a California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) file search, Native American outreach letters, and an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area. Constructed in the 1960s, the steel trestle holds a defunct 24-inch pipeline that was replaced by the Central Area and Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipeline in 2001. The trestle also carries a high- pressure gas line that had supplied the 870-1 Pump Station, which previously prevented the pipeline bridge from being demolished. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) abandoned this gas line in 2017 and replaced it with a feed from the south. Because the pipeline is no longer in use, OWD aims to demolish it to address liability concerns. The project area spans a narrow canyon south of the Lower Otay Reservoir, where a tributary to the Otay River is intersected by the bridge and pipeline. The site is located in the unincorporated community of Otay, in San Diego County (Figure 1), approximately ½-mile south of the Lower Otay Lake and northwest of the George F. Bailey Detention Facility. ICF conducted an extensive evaluation for the project, which included a review of archaeological and historical records in addition to an archaeological survey of the project area. This Phase I Cultural Resources report includes a brief history of the property, discussion of the regional role of identified cultural resources, and management guidelines for handling potentially significant cultural resources. The project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code [PRC] 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, 15000 et seq.), which require evaluation of the historical significance of cultural resources and the significance of potential adverse effects on lands planned for development or ground disturbance. ICF was retained to perform an archaeological survey and inventory to support the project’s CEQA review. This technical report describes the methods and results of the study and provides technical recommendations. Project Area The project is in the community of Otay Mesa in eastern San Diego County. The project area is in Township 18 South, Range 1 West and East; however, its western portion is part of the Otay- Estudillo land grant and is not included in the Township and Range system. The trestle and access routes are situated on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Otay Mesa 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Figure 2). The 5-acre project area consists of the exposed portion of pipeline spanning the Otay River, its access roads to the north and southwest, and a 50-foot buffer. Figure 1Project Vicinity \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\OtayWaterDistrict\00198_20_Trestles_Demolition\Figures\Cultural\OWD_Trestle_Fig-1.mxd; User: 38710; Date: 5/4/2020 0 42 Miles Source: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:250,000[N San Diego County, CA Project Area Mexico Figure 2Project Location \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\OtayWaterDistrict\00198_20_Trestles_Demolition\Figures\Cultural\OWD_Trestle_Fig-2.mxd; User: 38710; Date: 5/4/2020 0 2,0001,000 Feet LegendProject AreaSource: USGS-ESRI Imagery, 20191:24,000[N San Diego County, CA Project Area Mexico Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-4 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Regulatory Context State regulations recognize the public’s interest in cultural resources and the public benefit in preserving them. These laws and regulations require analysts to consider how a project might affect cultural resources and to take steps to avoid or reduce potential damage to them. A cultural resource can be considered any property valued (monetarily, aesthetically, or religiously) by a group of people. Valued properties can be historical in character or date to the precontact past (i.e., the time prior to contact with European-Americans). The project is subject to the rules and regulations that govern the treatment of archaeological sites in the state of California. The following summarizes the cultural resources regulations that apply to the project. State Regulations California Environmental Quality Act CEQA is the primary regulation that guides the need for environmental review in California. The purpose of CEQA is to consider whether a project would result in adverse effects on the environment and whether any effects could be reduced or mitigated. Any projects undertaken by a public agency or any discretionary projects (i.e., projects that require the exercise of judgment or deliberation by a public agency) performed by private parties are subject to the CEQA process. Under CEQA, “historical resources” are considered part of the environment and are therefore protected. Historical resources (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)) are defined as: ⚫ A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 4850 et seq.). ⚫ A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g). ⚫ Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC Section 5024.1, 14 CCR 4852), which parallel the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria but consider state and local significance. Even in instances where a resource is not listed in, nor determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR; not included in a local register of historical resources; or not identified in an historical resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that a resource is a historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. If it is determined that a project would result in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource, then that project would have a “significant effect” on the environment. CEQA also contains provisions regarding the protection of Native American remains (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d) and (e)). In the event that a study identifies the existence of, or likelihood of, Native American remains, the lead agency must work with the appropriate Native Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-5 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American burials, with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC. Local Regulations San Diego County Local Register of Historical Resources San Diego County requires that resource importance be assessed not only at the state level, as required by CEQA, but at the local level if a resource meets any of the local register criteria, which parallel the NRHP criteria but consider resource significance at the county and local levels. Environmental Setting The following summarizes the key characteristics of the project area’s natural and cultural setting. Discussion of the natural setting includes geology, flora, and fauna, while discussion of the cultural setting summarizes the precontact, ethnographic, and historical cultural setting of the project vicinity. Geology and Soils Otay Mesa begins about 5 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, rising from an elevation of about 60 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the Tijuana River and Otay River mouths, to an elevation of around 500 feet AMSL on the mesa’s west end. The Otay River Valley forms Otay Mesa’s northern boundary, the southern slopes of which are steep and dissected by small drainages that cut into the northern edge of Otay Mesa and empty into the Otay River. The project area spans a canyon formed by the Otay River and adjacent terrace escarpments with elevations ranging from around 250 feet AMSL at the river level and just under 500 feet AMSL on the terraces above to the north and south. The project area sits on one of a series of three marine terraces—the La Jolla, Lindavista, and Poway formations—that stretch along the coastline of metropolitan San Diego. Otay Mesa is part of the Linda Vista Terrace, which consists of nearshore marine and non-marine deposits composed from a cobble conglomerate with a reddish-brown coarse sand matrix dating from the early Pleistocene (Gallegos et al. 1998). The Lindavista Formation is overlain by the Otay Formation, which characterizes the exposed soils in the project area. The Otay Formation is composed of alluvial fan and fluvial deposits divided into a lower conglomerate, a middle gritstone, and an upper mud/sandstone (RECON 2013). The Otay and Lindavista formations sit atop the San Diego Formation, a late Pliocene formation that consists of an upper conglomerate and lower sandstone layer (Gallegos et al. 1998). The San Diego Formation is exposed in the upper walls of the canyons along the Otay River (Gallegos et al. 1998). Soils in the surveyed area consist of San Miguel-Exchequer rocky silt loams on 9 to 70 percent slopes, and Otay Formation fanglomerate in the center of the project area along the Otay River and to the west (Todd 2004). These soils develop on marine terraces and coastal foothills and are characterized as excessively to moderately well-drained loams to gravelly clay loams. Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-6 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Santiago Peak Volcanics, a raw material for flaked stone tool production, was readily available to prehistoric populations on Otay Mesa and the adjacent San Ysidro Mountains. The material occurs in cobble and block form throughout the Lindavista Formation and is easily obtainable as it erodes out of its matrix. Santiago Peak Volcanics also occur as bedrock outcrops, blocks, and veins on the sides of Otay Mountain (Price and Zepeda-Herman 2013). Flora Prior to European settlement, Otay Mesa was covered with a combination of vernal pool and perennial grassland areas interspersed with coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub communities. The Otay River Valley and smaller drainages would have supported moderate to dense chamise chaparral communities that would have extended across the mesa (Price and Zepeda- Herman 2013). The Otay River Valley would have supported extensive riparian communities including southern willow scrub, possibly southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, and potentially patches of southern coast live oak riparian forest along the lower north-facing slopes (Gallegos et al. 1998). Flora within and around the project area that would have been important resources to Native Americans includes manzanita (Archtostaphylos sp.), white sage (Salvia apiana), coastal sage brush (Artemisia californica), buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), elderberry (Sambus mexicana), and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) (Pigniolo and Baksh 1998). Historic farming and grazing on the mesa led to the widespread introduction of nonnative grasses, which now cover much of the undeveloped mesa top land in and around the project area. Vegetation communities and land cover types documented within the project area include coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and disturbed habitat dominated by nonnative grasses. Fauna Prior to the historic period, terrestrial faunal resources in the region included, but were not limited to, grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis), black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), badger (Taxidea taxus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus audubonii), ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes), and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae)(Burt and Grossenheider 1976). Cultural Setting Precontact Setting The project area is within the south coastal cultural region of California. Several cultural chronologies have been developed for the region (including, but not limited to, Moratto 1984, Bull 1987, Gallegos 1992, and Warren 1987), and this document uses a modified version of the cultural chronology developed by Gallegos (1992) and Gallegos et al. (1998) to help describe patterns in precontact cultural developments in the region. This chronology is an analytical construct and does not necessarily reflect Native American views. The following divides the precontact cultural sequence into three periods and summarizes the diagnostic attributes of archaeological components from each period. Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-7 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Paleoindian Period (prior to 10,000 Before Present) Traditionally, it was thought that the earliest human inhabitants of North America were highly mobile terrestrial hunters. Commonly referred to as the Clovis, these people used intricate bone and stone technology. On the west coast of North America, Clovis assemblages are characterized by a wide but sparse distribution of isolated tools and caches dated to between 12,800 and 12,500 years before present (BP) (Meltzer 2004). However, over the last few decades along the western coasts of North and South America, several archaeological sites and sets of human remains have been documented in island and mainland coastal contexts that date to the same period as the Clovis (see, e.g., Erlandson et al. 2007). These discoveries have forced researchers to reconsider how early humans migrated to the Americas and their land-use strategies—with a greater emphasis placed on coastal environments. In the south coastal region of California, the earliest evidence of human occupation has been found on the Channel Islands (Rick et al. 2005). For example, in addition to the set of human remains dated to around 13,000 BP on Santa Rosa Island, an archaeological site dating to around 11,600 BP has been documented on San Miguel Island. The site contains numerous fish and shellfish remains, indicating an emphasis on marine resources (Rick et al. 2001). At least two archaeological sites along the mainland coast have been dated to prior to 10,000 BP, as well (e.g., Glassow et al. 2007). Although no coastal assemblages dated to earlier than 10,000 BP have been documented along the San Diego shoreline, it is inferred that the absence of sites is largely a function of a long-term trend in sea level rise, shoreline erosion, and lagoon infilling in the region. These trends are likely to have obscured and/or destroyed early coastal sites. Archaic Period (10,000 to 1300 Before Present) Evidence of human occupation of the San Diego region begins to appear at around 10,000 BP in the form of lithic assemblages composed of scrapers, scraper planes, cobble choppers, large blades, large projectile points, and crescentic stones of unknown function (Davis et al. 1969, Warren 1967). These items are attributed to a cultural complex locally referred to as the San Dieguito. Based on the range of artifact types, artifact frequency, and distribution of archaeological sites, the San Dieguito are thought to have used a generalized terrestrial hunting and gathering land-use strategy (Davis et al. 1969). However, at least one archaeological site dated to this period contains both ocean mammal bone and shellfish, indicating that coastal resources were also used (Gallegos 1991). Interestingly, because the archaeological contents of San Dieguito sites tend to differ from coastal sites located farther north and include items typically associated with early Great Basin cultures (i.e., crescentic stones) (Moratto 1984), researchers have argued that the San Dieguito are descendants of groups that migrated out of the Great Basin region after the great Pleistocene lakes receded (e.g., Gallegos 1991). Starting at around 8000 BP, shell middens with millstone assemblages began to appear along sloughs and lagoons. Although this complex was originally considered to be a separate cultural tradition—the La Jolla—several researchers have subsequently argued that the San Dieguito, La Jolla, and Pauma (an inland lithic tradition indicative of inland resource collection and processing) complexes were created by the same group. The differences between the various complexes are thought to be a function of localized differences in the types of resources that were being collected and processed, rather than a difference in cultural affiliation (Vaughan 1982, Gallegos 1987) Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-8 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 It appears that after around 4000 BP the frequency of coastal archaeological sites in the San Diego region began to decline. Several mechanisms for this apparent decline have been postulated, including, but not limited to, the infilling of shallow lagoons during this period (Gallegos 1985, 1992; Masters and Gallegos 1997) and poor visibility/preservation of archaeological sites from this period related to local geomorphic factors (Waters et al. 1999). Late Prehistoric Period (1300 to around 450 Before Present) Starting at around 1300 BP, the archaeological record reflects the emergence of two cultural traditions in the San Diego region. The range and spatial distribution of site types, as well as site constituents for both traditions, are thought to reflect the ethnographically observed lifeways of the Kumeyaay and Luiseño peoples (Moratto 1984). Although these two groups have clear linguistic and cultural distinctions, both appear to have designed their land uses around the intensive exploitation of a range of local resources and established permanent to semi-permanent villages from the coast to the mountains and foothills. Both groups also adopted the use of small projectile points, pottery, and intensified use of acorns (True 1970). Based on ethnographic data, the boundary between the lands of the Kumeyaay (to the south) and Luiseño (to the north) peoples occurred in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon (Kroeber 1925). It is unknown, however, whether this boundary reflects a persistent spatial division between the two groups or the most recently recorded position of a boundary that fluctuated over time. Regardless, the project area is within an area inhabited by the Kumeyaay. Archaeological sites attributed to the Kumeyaay are characterized by a range of artifact types referred to as the Cuyamaca complex. The complex includes small triangular pressure-flaked projectile points, mortars, and pestles, drilled stone ornaments, olivella beads, a steatite industry, ceramics, and urn cremations. Archaeological sites attributed to the Luiseño (termed the San Luis Rey complex) contain a similar range of artifact types but tend to have lower frequencies of side-notched projectile points, ceramics and ceramic forms, and milling stones, and cremations tended to be ungathered (True 1970). Ethnographic Setting Otay Mesa was traditionally inhabited by the Kumeyaay people (previously referred to as the Diegueño), who spoke the Tipai dialect of the Yuman language. The Kumeyaay inhabited a region that contains present-day southern San Diego County, west and central Imperial County, and the Northern Baja peninsula (Spier 1923, Almstedt 1982). Speakers of the Tipai dialect traditionally lived south of the San Diego River, while speakers of the Ipai dialect traditionally lived north of the San Diego River (Langdon 1975, Hedges 1975). The Kumeyaay used a wide range of environments for habitation and resource collection, including the coast, foothills, mountains, and desert (Almstedt 1982). In response to the wide-ranging conditions of these environments, the Kumeyaay used a range of settlement strategies. For example, residential mobility was commonly practiced in desert environments where resources were sparse and widely distributed (Hicks 1963), whereas large seasonal residential bases were established in the mountains and foothills (Almstedt 1982). In keeping with the wide range of environments that they inhabited, the Kumeyaay exploited a range of resources, including (but not limited to) terrestrial mammals, birds, fish, marine invertebrates, grasses, manzanita, sage, sunflowers, lemonade berry, chia, mesquite, agave, and acorns. The latter was particularly important because they could be processed and stored for long periods (Hicks 1963, Shackley 1984). Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-9 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 The documentary record for ethnographically named places attributed to the Kumeyaay is sparse, consisting of fewer than 60 named places (Luomala 1978). Review of the publicly available literature reveals no documented ethnographically named places within the project area. However, consultation with the affected tribes may result in the identification of previously undocumented ethnographically named places. Historical Setting The historical period began in the San Diego region between the late sixteenth century and the middle eighteenth century, which corresponds with the arrival of Spanish explorers. A brief history of the interaction between Native Americans, Europeans, and European-Americans that followed initial contact is provided below. Native American History The Kumeyaay first encountered Spanish explorers in any great number in 1796, when the Spanish established the Mission San Diego de Alcalá and, later, the Mission San Luis Rey de Francia in 1798. The missions used the local Native American inhabitants as laborers and attempted to convert them to Catholicism (Castillo 1978). At contact, it is thought that the Kumeyaay population numbered between 16,000 and 19,000 individuals (Shipek 1986). Following the establishment of the missions and the introduction of European diseases, the Kumeyaay population decreased dramatically. By the early 1820s, California came under Mexico’s rule. Despite the transition, the Kumeyaay continued to be forced from their traditional lands and to work as laborers (Castillo 1978). As a result of this continued hardship and a period of political instability, many Native Americans participated in an uprising against the Mexican rancheros and left the missions and rancheros to live in their traditional villages (Shipek 1970). When California became a state in 1849, the Kumeyaay continued to receive harsh treatment (Castillo 1978). As conflicts with encroaching European-Americans increased, the United States government entered into treaty negotiations with the Kumeyaay (referred to as the Dieguiño at the time) in 1852 to obtain exclusive rights to land and cessation of hostilities in exchange for allotted reservation land, payment, and European-American farming and industrial equipment (Kappler 1929, Shipek 1978). The treaty, referred to as the 1852 Treaty of Santa Ysabel, was completed and sent to congress for ratification. Under pressure from settlers and a California Senate delegation, the treaty—and 17 other treaties—was rejected (Castillo 1978). After several years of additional encroachment by European-Americans, the United States congress passed the 1891 Act for the Relief of Mission Indians. This act set aside reservation lands and trust lands—often small in size and lacking adequate water—for the Kumeyaay people. Today, many descendants of the Kumeyaay live within or near the 13 reservations of the Kumeyaay Bands or in surrounding communities (Shipek 1978). European/European-American History Spanish Period The historic period in California began with the early explorations of Juan Cabrillo in 1542. Cabrillo came ashore on what is now Point Loma to claim the land for Spain and gave it the name San Miguel. Sixty years passed before another European, Sebastían Vizcaíno, entered the bay on November 10, 1602, and gave it the name San Diego. Although both expeditions encountered native inhabitants, there appears to have been little or no interaction. The first Spanish settlement in San Diego was Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-10 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 established in 1769 on Presidio Hill and consisted of a presidio (fort) and a chapel that also served as Alta California’s first mission. In that same year, an expedition headed by Gaspar de Portolá traveled north from the Presidio de San Diego to extend the Spanish Empire from Baja California into Alta California by seeking out locations for a chain of presidios and missions in the area. This expedition led to the establishment of the San Diego, San Luis Rey, and San Juan Capistrano missions between 1769 and 1821 (Pourade 1960). During the Spanish period, colonists introduced horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, corn, wheat, olives, and other agricultural goods and implements, as well as new architecture and methods of building construction (Englehardt 1920). Despite the economic prosperity of the missions, Spain maintained a tenuous grip on the region—a grip that was ultimately overcome by Spanish colonists in Alta California in 1822 with Mexico’s independence from Spain (Pourade 1961, Rawls and Bean 2003). Mexican Period Following Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821, the Mexican period began in San Diego County and lasted until 1848, ending with the conclusion of the Mexican-American War. During this period, most Spanish laws and practices continued until shortly before secularization of Mission San Luis Rey, Mission San Juan Capistrano, and Mission San Diego de Alcalá. During the Mexican Period, former Presidio soldiers became civilian residents, the Pueblo of San Diego was established, and transportation routes were expanded. During the 1820s, the region’s economic activity centered on agriculture and livestock-raising for subsistence and localized markets and hide and tallow production for the international market (Pourade 1961, Sherman 2001). After years of political instability and several failed efforts to secularize the missions, in 1834 Governor José Figueroa issued a proclamation defining the terms of the secularization redistribution of mission lands that would occur over the following 2 years. This resulted in the distribution of approximately 500 private rancho land grants, mainly to officials and retired soldiers (Rawls and Bean 2003). The project area lies within the confines of Jamul Rancho, a land grant covering 8,926.22 acres, granted to Pio Pico in 1829 by Governor Jose Maria Echeandia (Rush 1965). American Period Mexico’s defeat in the Mexican-American War in 1848 initiated the American period, when Mexico ceded California to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Subsequently, land ownership by the Mexicans living in California became a matter of considerable legal wrangling. In principle, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo protected Californios’ (residents of California prior to its acquisition by the United States) property. In practice, however, the legal process for vetting land claims that was set into motion by the Land Commission established in 1851, combined with the mounting debts of many rancho owners, allowed Americans and other newcomers to take possession of nearly all of the rancho lands originally granted to Californios. Much of the land that once constituted rancho holdings became public land, available for settlement by emigrants to California. The discovery of gold in the state, the conclusion of the Civil War, and the subsequent availability of free land through passage of the Homestead Act all resulted in an influx of people to California and the San Diego region after 1848. California’s importance to the country as an agricultural area began in the latter half of the nineteenth century and was subsequently supported by the construction of connecting railways for the transportation of people and goods. Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-11 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 The completion of a transcontinental railroad connection to San Diego in the mid-1880s inaugurated the first land boom and saw the city of San Diego’s population soar to over 35,000 in a few short years. The boom was felt throughout the region in the form of many newly formed towns and communities. Thousands of people came to the county to take advantage of the possibilities of the region. Paramount to the quest to develop the area was water acquisition, and late nineteenth century San Diego became a major focal point of dam construction in the world (Pryde 1984). By the end of the 1880s, however, the “boom” had become a “bust” as banks failed, land prices plummeted, and speculation could not be sustained by true and beneficial economic growth. Thousands of people left the region, abandoning their significantly devalued properties to the tax assessors. However, not everyone left; many remained to form the foundations of small pioneering communities across the county. These families practiced dry farming, planted orchards, raised livestock, built schools and post offices, and created a life for themselves in the valleys and mesas of San Diego County (Griffin and Weeks 2004). Historic Land Use in the Project Area and Vicinity Otay Mesa Otay Mesa developed slowly until the 1870s. In 1869 a stage route to Yuma was opened that ran across the mesa. Farming developed through the 1870s, and by 1879 most of the mesa was under intensive agriculture. Though the cultivated area was expansive, only about a dozen families lived on the mesa at the time, and the most widely grown crops were wheat, barley, corn, tomatoes, and beans (Robbins-Wade 2008). Following the Civil War, acquisition of 160 acres of land to farm became a goal of thousands of young people and immigrants in the United States. Pioneer farmers wanted to establish small agricultural communities patterned after those they had left in the east. The settlement of Otay Mesa by pioneer farmers began in the 1880s. In 1885, four families lived on the mesa. Two years later in 1887, 40 households had been established on the mesa, constituting a community of 140, including 25 school-aged children. According to an 1886 article in the San Diego Union, the settlement consisted of “comfortable looking farmhouses and well-defined barns,” situated on farms ranging from 160 to 320 acres (Gallegos et al. 1998). Individual farmsteads on the mesa made up a rural community centered around the Alta School. Farmers living in small rural communities were instrumental in the development of San Diego County as they fed growing urban populations and provided business for local markets. These kinds of settlements were the most prevalent type of community in San Diego County during the period (Van Wormer 1986). Farming families obtained water for crops and household use from nearby streams, wells, and catchment basins, and by the early 1900s an extensive system of dams had developed to store runoff water (Price and Zepeda-Herman 2013). Census records show fluctuating then declining population on the mesa during the turn of the century. Following droughts of the early 1900s, many farming families had left the mesa in search of work elsewhere. By 1910, only nine children were enrolled in Alta School. During the 1920s, a nationwide agricultural depression brought hard times for all San Diego County farmers, which became even worse with the Great Depression of the 1930s. This period of economic hardship saw an almost complete disappearance of rural farm schoolhouse communities in the county (Van Wormer 1986). One of the few to survive was the Alta School District community in Otay Mesa. After World War II, at least 16 families lived on the mesa, and the schoolhouse remained the center of the Otay Water District Chapter 1. Introduction Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 1-12 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 community. Hay and grain continued to be staple crops on the mesa during the first half of the twentieth century; ranching and farming continued to be the main occupation of residents on the mesa throughout much of the twentieth century. In the 1960s the Otay Municipal Water District brought a dependable water supply for irrigation to the mesa, resulting in changes in the types of crops grown there (Gallegos et al. 1998). Tomatoes became the dominant product, and other more water-intensive crops such as cucumbers, bell peppers, and celery were also grown. Hay and grain continued to be important, especially on the eastern part of the mesa (Van Wormer 1986). The arrival of a dependable water supply brought development, though change occurred slowly, and the mesa remained a place of open fields through the mid-1970s. With the establishment of the second international border crossing in 1985, development accelerated with road improvements and construction of housing tracts and commercial and industrial complexes. Further Research The Otay Mesa area was brought into the land development process relatively late when compared to other areas of San Diego County, and it maintained a generally rural appearance through the mid- 1970s. Review of historical maps and aerial images of the present project area shows that it has been subjected to limited historical development, likely due to its location across a steep canyon. 1953 aerial imagery shows a small structure approximately a quarter mile northwest of the current project location. It appears that in the 1950s the area was relatively undeveloped and had only two or three access roads and no structures in the general project vicinity. By 1964, the present trestle structure had been constructed, and large parts of the area were graded. Dirt roads in the area multiply by 1964 and construction had begun on the detention center approximately a half-mile from the project area. USGS historic topographic maps show that construction on facilities related to the water filtration plant around a half-mile northwest of the project area began between 1944 and 1957. Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 2-1 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Chapter 2 Native American Outreach and Literature Review As part of the due diligence for the project a Sacred Lands File search was requested from the NAHC on April 7, 2020. NAHC responded on April 27, 2020, with negative results indicated for cultural resources in the project vicinity. The NAHC also provided a list of 19 tribal contacts who may be able to provide additional information. On June 22, 2020, ICF sent outreach letters to all 19 individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the study area. The letters described the proposed project and requested information on cultural resources in or nearby the study area. To date, no replies have been received from the contacted Tribes. Consultation between OWD and Native American tribes is ongoing. Native American correspondence is documented in Appendix A. As part of the cultural resources study, ICF consulted previously conducted record searches conducted in 2018 with the SCIC that covered the project area and a 0.25-mile radius. The SCIC contains all cultural resource records from Imperial and San Diego counties. This records search revealed one cultural resource (CA-SDI-10668/P-37-01668) within the project area and another 14 cultural resources within 0.25-mile of the project area. A brief summary of the CA-SDI-10668 is provided below. The additional sites outside of the project area and within the 0.25-mile buffer include one historic homestead, a historic refuse dump, six prehistoric lithic scatters, and six prehistoric isolates (Table 1). CA-SDI-10668/P-37-01668 CA-SDI-10668 is a large and sparse multicomponent site containing prehistoric lithic-related loci and historic refuse and built environment ruins dating to the 1930s. The site was first recorded in 1979 and updated in 1986, 2010, and 2013. The 1986 site update assessed the site as measuring 914 by 463 meters. At that time, additional artifacts were identified between site CA-SDI-00668 and surrounding sites CA-SDI-8655, CA-SDI-8656, and CA-SDI-7218, resulting in the four sites being combined as one large resource under the CA-SDI-10668 trinomial. The majority of the site was located where the East Mountain Detention Complex now stands, which resulted in the destruction of a large portion of the site. Site spatial data indicates that its northernmost edge intersects with the current project boundaries. The site has not been evaluated for its eligibility for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Otay Water District Chapter 2. Native American Outreach and Literature Review Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 2-2 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Table 1. Cultural Resources within 0.25-Mile of the Project Area Primary No. (P-37-) Trinomial (CA-SDI-) Resource Type Description Recorder(s) and Date 010668 10668 Multicomponent site Prehistoric quarry and lithic scatter, historic cistern and refuse scatter Thesken 1979 Kyle 1986 Blotner 2010 AECOM 2013 011370 11370H Historic site Refuse scatter RECON 1989 004737 4737 Prehistoric site Prehistoric lithic reduction scatter and historic debris scatter Waters 1971 Gallegos and Associates 1993 010862 10862 Historic site Homestead structural remains, pads, reservoir, and trash scatter RECON 1987 015391 15931 Prehistoric isolate Single metavolcanic flake (collected) Gallegos and Associates 1993 014535 -- Prehistoric isolate Single lithic scraper Brian F. Smith & Associates 1996 015388 15388 Prehistoric isolate Single flake (collected) Gallegos and Associates, 1993 015200 -- Prehistoric isolate Lithics: one flake and one core (collected) ERCE 1991 010667 10667 Prehistoric site Lithic scatter ERCE 1991 012936 12936 Prehistoric site Lithic scatter Hector 1992 010874 10874 Prehistoric site Lithic scatter WESTEC 1987 015385 -- Prehistoric isolate Single flake Gallegos and Associates 1993 015386 -- Prehistoric isolate Two flakes Gallegos and Associates 1993 A total of 27 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 0.25-mile radius of the project area. Ten of these covered portions of the project area. One of these studies covered the entire project area, including the bridge and access roads. Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 3-1 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Chapter 3 Research Design Objectives The objectives of this study included the following. ⚫ Relocate previously documented archaeological resources. ⚫ Identify previously undocumented archaeological and historic built resources. ⚫ Evaluate all resources within the project area for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP based on surface-exposed and subsurface artifacts and features. ⚫ Consider the project’s impacts on resources within the project area. Expectations Analysis of the background information provided in Chapters 1 and 2 resulted in the development of the following expectations for the project area. ⚫ Review of the geology of the project area reveals that much of it consists of bedrock or decomposing bedrock at the ground surface. Such areas would have the potential to contain surface-exposed archaeological deposits, but limited potential to contain buried archaeological deposits except in instances where anthropogenic filling has occurred. Areas around access roads on the north and south of the canyon form slopes over 40% and have low potential to contain either surface-exposed or buried archaeological deposits. ⚫ Review of the precontact and ethnographic literature, as well as the record search, revealed that the project vicinity has a limited history of precontact use. The presence of small lithic scatters and isolates suggests that the area was used as a lithic procurement area. Given the current known extent of cultural resources in the area, it was considered possible that additional lithic artifacts associated with documented and previously undocumented precontact archaeological sites may be located within the project area. ⚫ Limited development has occurred within the project area during the historic period. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project area will have limited potential to contain historic built resources or historical archaeological sites. Aerial imagery suggests that grading increased in the project area after 1955 and may have impacted existing resources. The project’s location across a canyon suggests that historical flooding (e.g., the 1916 Flood) may have damaged, redeposited, or destroyed prehistoric sites along the river corridor. Based on an examination of existing data, the likelihood for encountering archaeological sites in the project area is considered low. Across much of the project area, there is limited potential for encountering buried archaeological sites due to shallow soil deposition on the top of the mesa and steep terrain below. Otay Water District Chapter 3. Research Designs Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 3-2 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Methods To accomplish the objectives of this study, an intensive pedestrian survey and inventory was conducted. The purpose of the survey was to relocate documented archaeological resources and identify previously undocumented archaeological and historic built resources based on surface- exposed cultural materials. Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory ICF performed a cultural resources survey of the project area in accordance with OWD's CEQA procedures and 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.4. The field effort consisted of surveying the access roads and pipeline structure for facilities associated with the project and within a 50-foot buffer, amounting to just over 5 acres. Previous research suggests that one existing archaeological site (CA-SDI-10668) intersects with the project area. Because the trestle structure (built between 1954 and 1963) is over 50 years old, it requires recording and evaluation under CEQA. The trestle structure was examined and documented at the north and south ends; however, the section spanning the canyon was not surveyed due to safety concerns and lack of access. The area around existing site CA-SDI-10668 was more intensively inspected in 5-meter transects, and no cultural materials were identified. During the survey, ICF archaeologists inspected the ground surface of the project footprint, access routes, and the area near where the existing site intersects with the project buffer. Record search data were loaded onto an iPad tablet with Collector software, which allowed surveyors to easily navigate and record field data using updated project and archaeological site spatial data. Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 4-1 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Chapter 4 Results This chapter summarizes the results of the Cultural Resources Survey field investigation. The investigation documented the now-historic trestle structure and updated forms for site CA-SDI- 10668, which intersects the project area but was not relocated. Associated archaeological resource forms are included in Appendix A. Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory On June 18, 2021, ICF archeologists Katherine Sinsky and Hector Galvez performed an intensive pedestrian survey of the 5-acre project area. Survey coverage was moderate due to dense vegetation and steep drop offs on either side of the access roads. Steep terrain on the north side of the canyon prevented access to the trestle structure, and observations were made from an overlook to the west of where the pipeline dips underground. (Photos 1–3). Photo 1. Overview of access route and Otay Valley facing west. Otay Water District Chapter 4. Results Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 4-2 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Photo 2. Bridge crossing over canyon, facing north. Photo 3. Overview of project area, facing south. Otay Water District Chapter 4. Results Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 4-3 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 One previously recorded site (CA-SDI-10668) intersects with the southern part of the project area and was surveyed around that intersection. No cultural materials associated with the site were identified. Confidential Figure 3 (Appendix C) shows the locations of these archaeological resources relative to the project area. A brief summary of the previously recorded archaeological resource and description of the Otay Trestle (which is over 50 years in age) follows. CA-SDI-10668 CA-SDI-10668 is a large and sparse site that was first recorded by WESTEC in 1986 as a multi- component resource composed of a prehistoric quarry site and historic resource dated to circa 1930. According to WESTEC, prehistoric artifact types were consistent with a quarry site containing lithic scatters and flaking stations. Historic features included a mortar, cement, asphaltum, and rock cistern, broken glass, metal pipe, and cement trough. As part of WESTEC’s interpretation, previously recorded sites CA-SDI-8656 and CA-SDI-7218 were subsumed under the CA-SDI-10668 designation. The site was re-surveyed in 2010 by HDR as part of an SDG&E transmission line survey next to the detention center, and the site boundary was extended to encompass a new prehistoric artifact. In 2013 AECOM visited the site for a pole replacement survey and did not relocate any cultural materials. Previous site updates indicate that the main part of the site, located about 0.5-mile south of the project area, had been disturbed and destroyed with the construction of the East Mesa Detention Facility to the south. ICF surveyed in 5-meter transects within and around where the plotted site boundary intersects the project area, and no cultural materials were identified. CA-SDI-10668 was a sparse lithic scatter of artifacts on the ground surface. Road construction and the construction of the detention facility appear to have destroyed the site. The site appears to have been an expedient tool making or cobble testing site in conjunction with its location on a mesa type, and subsurface deposits are unlikely to be associated with the resource. The site is not recommended eligible for the CRHR under Criterion D. Confidential Appendix A includes the CA-SDI- 10668 update. Otay Trestle Constructed in the 1960s, the steel bridge holds a 24-inch pre-stressed concrete water pipeline that spans a canyon formed by the Otay River. Although, commonly called the Otay Trestle the bridge is actually a suspension bridge consisting of two approximately 15-foot-high triangular steel lattice towers with cross braces with approximately 1.5-inch-thick braided steel cables supporting a steel open box deck at both ends upon which the pipeline rests. A few concrete pylons set in the bedrock below support the bottom of the pipeline beyond the bridge abutments after it exits the canyon. The towers are set on concrete abutments supporting the bridge, which is suspended 40 to 50 feet above the riverbed. The abutments are likely supported by pilings set into the bedrock immediately below the ground surface. The suspension cables are anchored in concrete anchor blocks set back in the canyon slopes approximately 25 feet from each tower. The bridge is secured from unauthorized access with barbed wire and chain link fencing. The aboveground portion of the abandoned water and gas pipeline bridge is approximately 380 feet long and 6 feet at its widest to support pedestrian maintenance of the line. The pipeline bridge first appeared on historical aerial imagery between 1958 and 1961. According to Van Wormer (1986), this period marked the beginning of infrastructure initiatives aimed at bolstering the agricultural vitality of Otay Mesa. Water pipelines like this would increase the supply of consistent and reliable water for farms on the mesa. Appendix C includes the site form created for this resource. Otay Water District Chapter 4. Results Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 4-4 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 As one of many pipelines that brought water to Otay Mesa neither the pipeline nor the bridge that supports it have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history under Criterion 1 of the eligibility criteria for listing on the CRHR. The pipeline was not responsible for an influx of development or agricultural activity in the area. No information could be found regarding the architect who designed the bridge or the contractor who built it. The pipeline and bridge did not require innovative construction methods and were built using common materials and construction methods that are ubiquitous and still used today. The pipeline and bridge do not represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values that would make it eligible under Criteria 2 or 3 for listing on the CRHR. The existing research and recording of the resource have exhausted its research potential. Further study or research into the resource will not yield information important to the history of the local area and the resource is recommended is not eligible for the CRHR under Criterion 4. Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 5-1 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The cultural resources survey did not identify any previously undocumented archaeological resources in the project area and did not relocate any components of the previously recorded intersecting resource, CA-SDI-10688. The historic Otay trestle structure, which is the focus of the present study, was documented and recorded as a new resource. None of these resources qualify for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. Recommendations Archaeological and Native American monitoring should be performed in accordance with the protocols outlined in mitigation measures Cul-2A, Cul-2C, and Cul-2D as identified in the 2015 Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR. If unanticipated discoveries are made during construction, ICF recommends that mitigation measure Cul-2D, as identified in the 2015 Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update PEIR, be implemented. Mitigation measure Cul-2D outlines procedures for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities. Otay Water District Chapter 5. Conclusions and Recommendations Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 5-2 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 This page intentionally left blank. Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 6-1 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Chapter 6 Bibliography AECOM 2013 DPR form for site CA-SDI-10668 on file at the South Coastal Information Center. Almstedt, R. F. 1982 Kumeyaay and `IIpay. In C. M. Woods (ed.), APS/SDG&E Interconnection Native American Cultural Resources. Wirth Associates, Inc., San Diego, CA. Brian F. Smith and Associates 1996 Archaeological Site Record CA-SDI-14535. Record on file with the South Coastal Information Center. Bull, C. S. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In D. Gallegos (ed.), San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper 1. Burt, W. H., and R. P. Grossenheider 1976 A Field Guide to the Mammals of America North of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Castillo, E. D. 1978 The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In R. F. Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Davis, E. L. C. W. Brott, and D. L. Weide 1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers 6, San Diego CA. Englehardt, Z. 1920 San Diego Mission. James H. Barry Company, San Francisco, CA. Erlandson, J. M., T. C. Rick, T. L. Jones, and J. F. Porcasi 2007 One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In T. L Jones and K. A. Klar (eds.), California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD. Gallegos, D. R. 1985 Batiquitos Lagoon Revisited. In Causal Papers, Cultural Resources Management 2 (1):1– 14. 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego Archaeological Society, San Diego, CA. 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten (eds.), Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Otay Water District Chapter 6. Bibliography Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 6-2 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 1992 Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9000 to 1300 Years Ago. In T. Jones (ed.), Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publications 10: 205–216, Davis, CA. Gallegos, D. R., C. Kyle, A. Schroth, and P. Miller 1998 Management Plan for Otay Mesa Prehistoric Resources, San Diego, California. Prepared for City of San Diego and Caltrans. Reprinted by Coyote Press, Salinas, CA. Glassow, M. A., A. Lynn, H. Gamble, J. E. Perry, and G. S. Russell 2007 Prehistory of the Northern California Bight and the Adjacent Transverse Ranges. In T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar (eds.), California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD. Griffin, E. C., and J. R. Weeks 2004 Peopling the Region: San Diego’s Population Patterns. In P. R. Pryde (ed.), San Diego: An Introduction to the Region. 3rd ed. Sunbelt Publications, Inc., San Diego, CA. HDR 2010 DPR form for site CA-SDI-10668 on file at the South Coastal Information Center. Hedges, Kenneth 1975 Notes on the Kumeyaay: A Problem of Identification. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):71–83. Hicks, F. N. 1963 Ecological Aspects of Aboriginal Culture in the Western Yuman Area. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA Kappler, C. J. 1929 Treaty Made and Concluded at the Village of Santa Ysabel, California, Between O.M. Wozencraft, United States Indian Agent, and the Captains and Head Men of the Nation of Diegueno Indians, January 7, 1852. In Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol IV. Laws. Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Washington D.C. Langdon, Margaret 1975 Kamia and Kumeyaay: A Linguistic Perspective. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):64–70. Luomala, K. 1978 Tipai-Ipai. In R. F. Heizer (ed.) Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Masters, P. M. and D. R. Gallegos 1997 Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County during the Middle Holocene. In J. M. Erlandson and M. A. Glassow (eds.), Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Otay Water District Chapter 6. Bibliography Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 6-3 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Meltzer, D. J. 2004 Peopling of North America. In A. R. Gillespie, S. C Porter, and B. F. Atwater (eds.), Developments in Quaternary Science Volume 1: The Quaternary Period in the United States. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Moratto, M. J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Reprinted 2004, Coyote Press, Salinas, CA. Otay Water District (OWD) 2015 Otay Water Facilities Master Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report. On file at OWD offices. Pigniolo, Andrew R. and Michael Baksh 1998 Cultural Resource Testing Program to Determine The Northern Boundary Of CA-SDI- 13,702 For The Rancho Jamul (1655-1) 0.40 MG Reservoir Project, San Diego County, California. Prepared for EnviroMine. Confidential report on file with the South Coastal Information Center. Pourade, Richard F. 1960 The Explorers: the History of San Diego. Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego, CA. 1961 Time of the Bells: the History of San Diego. Union-Tribune Publishing, San Diego, CA. Price, Henry, and Carmen Zapeta-Herman 2013 Cultural Resources Report for the Otay Mesa Community Plan Update. Prepared for the City of San Diego, project no. 30330/304032. Confidential report on file with the South Coastal Information Center. Pryde, P. R. (editor) 1984 San Diego: An Introduction to the Region. 2nd ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA. Rawls, J. J., and W. Bean 2003 California: An Interpretive History. 8th ed. McGraw-Hill Publishing, San Francisco, CA. RECON 2013 Cultural Resources Report for the Otay Mesa Community Plan Update, City of San Diego Project No. 30330/304032 SCH No. 2004651076. On file at RECON, San Diego office. Rick, T. C., J. M. Erlandson, and R. L. Vellanoweth 2001 Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. American Antiquity 66:595–613. Rick, T. C., J. M. Erlandson, R. L. Vellanoweth, and T. J. Braje 2005 From Pleistocene Mariners to Complex Hunter Gatherers: The Archaeology of the California Channel Islands. Journal of World Prehistory 19:169–228. Robbins-Wade, Mary 2008 Archaeological Resources Analysis for the Master Stormwater System Maintenance Program, San Diego, California Project No. 42891. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center. Rush, P. S. 1965 Some Old Ranchos and Adobes. University of California. San Diego, CA. Otay Water District Chapter 6. Bibliography Cultural Resources Survey I.D. 7 Otay Trestle Demolition Project 6-4 July 2021 ICF 00198.20 Shackley, M. S. 1984 Archaeological Investigations in the Western Colorado Desert: A Socioecological Approach, Vol. 1. Wirth Environmental Services, A Division of Dames & Moore, San Diego, CA. Sherman, L. 2001 A History of North San Diego County: From Mission to Millennium. Heritage Media Group. Carlsbad, CA. Shipek, F. C. 1970 The Autobiography of Delfina Cuero. Malki Museum Press, Banning, CA. 1978 History of Southern California Mission Indians. In R. F. Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 1986 The Impact of Europeans upon Kumeyaay Culture. In R. Starr (ed.), The Impact of European Exploration and Settlement on Local Native Americans. Cabrillo Historical Association, San Diego, CA. Spier, L. 1923 Southern Diegueño Customs. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20:292–358. Todd, V. R. 2004 Preliminary Geologic Map of the El Cajon 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California. U.S. Geological Survey, open-file report 2004-1361. True, D. L. 1970 Investigation of a Late Prehistoric Complex in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Monograph, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Van Wormer, S. R. 1986 A History of Jamacha Valley: Agricultural and Community Development in Southern California. Master’s thesis, San Diego State University, California. Vaughan, S. J. 1982 A Replicative Systems Analysis of the San Dieguito Component at the C.W. Harris Site. Master of Arts Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. Warren, C. N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32 (2):168– 185. 1987 The San Dieguito and La Jolla: Some Comments. In (ed. D. Gallegos) San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper 1. Waters, M. R., B. F. Byrd, and S. N. Reddy 1999 Geoarchaeological Investigations of San Mateo and Las Flores Creeks, California; Implications for Coastal Settlement Models. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 14 (3):289–306. WESTEC 1986 DPR form for site CA-SDI-10668 on file at the South Coastal Information Center. Appendix A California DPR 523 Forms (Confidential) This page intentionally left blank. Appendix B Native American Consultation Appendix C Confidential Cultural Resources Location Map This page intentionally left blank. STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 4, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Michael J. Long Chief, Engineering PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: Informational Item – First Quarter Fiscal Year 2023 Capital Improvement Program Report GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: No recommendation. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Please see Attachment A. PURPOSE: To update the Board about the status of all Capital Improvement Program (CIP) expenditures and to highlight significant issues, progress, and milestones on major active construction projects. ANALYSIS: To keep up with growth and to meet our ratepayers' expectations to adequately deliver safe, reliable, cost-effective, and quality water, each year the District staff prepares a Six-Year CIP Plan that identifies the District’s infrastructure needs. The CIP is comprised of four categories consisting of backbone capital facilities, replacement/renewal projects, capital purchases, and developer reimbursement projects. The First Quarter Fiscal Year 2023 update is intended to provide a detailed analysis of progress in completing these projects within the allotted time and budget of $12.579 million. Expenditures through the First Quarter totaled approximately $1.526 million. AGENDA ITEM 8 2 Approximately 12% of the Fiscal Year 2023 expenditure budget was spent (see Attachment B). FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer No fiscal impact as this is an informational item only. STRATEGIC GOAL: This Program supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide exceptional water and wastewater service to its customers, and to manage District resources in a transparent and fiscally responsible manner” and the General Manager’s Vision, "To be a model water agency by providing stellar service, achieving measurable results, and continuously improving operational practices." LEGAL IMPACT: None. MJL:jf https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/Forms_New/D-Construction/CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2023/Q1/Staff Report/BD 01-04-2023 Staff Report First Quarter FY 2023 CIP Update.docx Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B - Fiscal Year 2023 First Quarter CIP Expenditure Report Attachment C – Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: VARIOUS Informational Item – First Quarter Fiscal Year 2023 Capital Improvement Program Report COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 5, 2022. The Committee supported staff's recommendation. NOTE: The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the full Board. FISCAL YEAR 2023 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/22) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2023 09/30/22 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2023 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Q1 Comments CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS - P2040 Res - 1655-1 Reservoir 0.5 MG Cameron 275$ 44$ 231$ 16%5,750$ 1,080$ 4,670$ 19%Project is currently 60% designed. P2405 PL - 624/340 PRS, Paseo Ranchero and Otay Valley Road Cameron 125 6 119 5%1,500 49 1,451 3%Related to P2553. See P2553 for comments. P2451 Otay Mesa Desalination Conveyance and Disinfection System Kennedy 1 - 1 0%3,940 3,823 117 97% If the project moves forward, the District’s project has completed the environmental review as required by CEQA and NEPA. The Presidential permit has expired and a new permit would be required. P2453 SR-11 Utility Relocations Marchioro 5 12 (7) 240%3,000 2,319 681 77% Expenditures and schedule driven by Caltrans. Construction completed Q4 FY 2022. Caltrans Utility Agreement No. 33718 scheulded for close out Q3 FY 2023. P2460 I.D. 7 Trestle and Pipeline Demolition Beppler 100 15 85 15%750 191 559 25% Environmental documentation preparation was completed in Q1 with public review initiated. Submission for City of Chula Vista permits will be packaged in Q2. P2485 SCADA - Infrastructure and Communications Replacement Kerr 35 - 35 0%2,550 2,448 102 96%CIP on target, continuous within budget. P2516 PL - 12-Inch, 640 Zone, Jamacha Road - Darby/Osage Marchioro 5 - 5 0%1,000 - 1,000 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2028. P2521 Large Meter Vault Upgrade Program Carey 25 - 25 0%620 473 147 76% Meter Services has been short handed so CIP work will not start until Q3. P2553 Heritage Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 50 4 46 8%5,050 265 4,785 5% Project is 100% designed. Project will bid with the City of CV's Heritage Road Bridge project. The City plans to bid the project in Q3. P2584 Res - 657-1 and 657-2 Reservoir Demolitions Marchioro - - - 0%50 - 50 0%No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. P2608 PL - 8-inch, 850 Zone, Coronado Avenue, Chestnut/Apple Cameron 100 2 98 2%1,820 390 1,430 21% Phase I of project accepted by the District FY 2021; Phase II starts after 3 year paving moratorium. P2611 Quarry Road Bridge Replacement and Utility Relocation Cameron 10 - 10 0%375 124 251 33% This is a County of SD driven project, and the County has put this project on hold. P2612 PL - 12-inch, 711 Zone, Paso de Luz/Telegraph Canyon Road Beppler 500 20 480 4%1,250 267 983 21% Notice to Proceed has been issued, mobilization is awaiting materials acquisition, construction is to be completed in Q4. P2614 485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 650 15 635 2%1,375 15 1,360 1%Construction to begin in Q3. P2617 Lobby Security Enhancements Payne 1 - 1 0%225 179 46 80%Pending a needs assessment wt safety & security. P2619 PS - Temporary Lower Otay Pump Station Redundancy Marchioro 14 - 14 0%3,370 3,364 6 100% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Construction completed Q1 FY 2022. Project one year warranty completed Q1 FY 2023. Project will be closed out for FY 2024. P2623 Central Area to Otay Mesa Interconnection Pipelines Combination Air/Vacuum Valve Replacements Marchioro 10 - 10 0%600 219 381 37% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2026. P2626 803-4 Reservoir Water Quality Improvements – PAX System Purchase Coburn-Boyd 10 - 10 0%325 303 22 93% This project is complete and should not have any further expenditures. P2630 624-3 Reservoir Automation of Chemical Feed System Cameron 300 - 300 0%675 16 659 2%Project put on temporary hold. P2638 Buildings and Grounds Refurbishments Payne 173 - 173 0%400 52 348 13% Admin landscape update solicitation out Q2 with install Q3-Q4. P2639 Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 175 40 135 23%3,700 295 3,405 8% Design will be completed by District staff in-house with support of District as-needed electrical, corrosion, and survey consultants since the design consultant's agreement was terminated Q4 FY 2022. Staff's in-house design scheduled for completion Q4 FY 2023. P2642 Rancho Jamul Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 50 12 38 24%2,500 138 2,362 6% Project coordinated with 1655-1 Reservoir (P2040). See P2040 for updates. P2646 North District Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 50 - 50 0%1,200 1 1,199 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2026. FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/Forms_New/D-Construction/CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2023/Q1/FY2023 1st Qtr Exp.xlsx Page 1 of 5 11/15/2022 FISCAL YEAR 2023 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/22) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2023 09/30/22 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2023 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Q1 Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 P2647 Central Area Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 3 17 (14) 567%2,000 28 1,972 1% Cathodic protection improvements completed at the 980-2 Pump Station during emergency repair work. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2028. P2649 HVAC Equipment Purchase Payne 64 - 64 0%279 104 175 37%Various HVAC replacements FY 2023-2027. P2652 520 to 640 Pressure Zone Conversion Cameron 30 - 30 0%250 37 213 15% Project is on hold until PDR for P2195 & P2196 is completd. P2654 Heritage Road Interconnection Improvements Marchioro 10 - 10 0%200 40 160 20% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Project on hold pending coordination with City of San Diego. P2658 832-1 Pump Station Modifications Marchioro 5 - 5 0%600 10 590 2% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Completion of construction anticipated FY 2028. P2659 District Boardroom Improvements Kerr 25 - 25 0%300 185 115 62%Project on target. P2663 Potable Water Pressure Vessel Program Marchioro 30 1 29 3%2,320 287 2,033 12% Inspection of four (4) pressure vessels tentatively scheduled for FY 2023. Design to replace 711 Pump Station surge tank in progress. P2664 Otay Mesa Dual Piping Modification Program Beppler 50 - 50 0%350 36 314 10% Alterntatives have been identified, coordination with Finance is required to consider financial implications of potential changes. P2665 PL - 12-inch Pipeline Replacement, 870 Zone, Cactus Road Marchioro - - - 0%125 - 125 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Completion of construction scheduled beyond six- year planning budget. P2666 Low Head and High Head Pump Stations Demolition Marchioro - - - 0%200 - 200 0% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Completion of construction scheduled beyond six- year planning budget. P2667 Small Meter Testing Bench Carey 50 - 50 0%250 - 250 0% The meter test bench was installed in Q1 but payment was not sent until Q2. P2669 Fuel Tank Safety and Integrity Rahders 45 - 45 0%100 3 97 3%Activity anticipated in Q2. P2674 System Pressure Reducing Program Beppler 10 - 10 0%100 16 84 16% Updates to hydraulic modeling of hydropneumatic zones has corrected several potential high pressure areas. Additional areas will be researched as time and budget allows. P2676 980-2 PS Miscellaneous Replacements Marchioro 100 32 68 32%675 340 335 50% Replacement 600 hosepower, 4,160 VAC pump motor anticipated to arrive Q2 FY 2023. Planning and design to replace electrical equipment in progress. Repairs to existing electrical gear ongoing. P2683 Pump Station Safety, Monitoring, and Automation Improvements Marchioro 50 9 41 18%500 24 476 5%Completion of construction scheduled FY 2028. P2684 Zero Emission Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure Cameron 150 2 148 1%2,000 2 1,998 0%Project is in the planning stage. P2688 Standby Power Renovations - Potable Water Rahders 15 - 15 0%750 - 750 0%Activity anticipated in Q2. R2117 RWCWRF Disinfection System Improvements Beppler 800 30 770 4%1,800 438 1,362 24% The preliminary design report was reviewed and finalized in Q1, 60% design is in progress. A memorandum of understanding with Trojan for pre- procurement of the UV system was executed in Q1. R2120 RWCWRF Filtered Water Storage Tank Improvements Cameron 15 - 15 0%700 595 105 85%Additional material purchase scheduled for Q3. R2146 Recycled Pipeline Cathodic Protection Improvements Marchioro 500 7 493 1%1,200 220 980 18%Completion of construction scheduled Q3 FY 2023. R2153 Recycled Water Pressure Vessel Program Marchioro 1 - 1 0%80 - 80 0% Inspection of the 680-1R Pump Station scheduled for FY 2023. S2012 San Diego County Sanitation District Outfall and RSD Outfall Replacement Beppler 200 - 200 0%2,400 1,111 1,289 46% County invoicing typically occurs in Q4, no activities in Q1. S2043 RWCWRF Sludge Handling System Beppler 1 - 1 0%185 129 56 70% No activities in Q1, limited planning work anticipated in FY 2023. S2061 RWCWRF Aeration Controls Consolidation & Optimization Upgrades (S)Beppler 30 - 30 0%220 78 142 35% Programming activities were completed in FY 2022 Q4. Operations to be monitored in FY 2023 to ensure proper functioning. https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/Forms_New/D-Construction/CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2023/Q1/FY2023 1st Qtr Exp.xlsx Page 2 of 5 11/15/2022 FISCAL YEAR 2023 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/22) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2023 09/30/22 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2023 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Q1 Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 S2071 San Diego Metro Wastewater Capital Improvements Kennedy 36 9 27 25%721 227 494 31% Annual City of S.D. invoicing covers this project. No District involvement in design and construction. Total Capital Facility Projects Total:4,884 277 4,607 6%60,330 19,921 40,409 33% REPLACEMENT/RENEWAL PROJECTS P2058 PL - 20-Inch, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road from Melody Road to Highway 94 Cameron 50 5 45 10%1,250 16 1,234 1%Design to begin in Q3. P2083 PS - 870-2 Pump Station Replacement Marchioro 10 - 10 0%19,850 19,733 117 99% Construction completed Q1 FY 2022. Project one year warranty period completed Q1 FY 2023. Project will be closed out for FY 2024. P2171 PL - 20-Inch, 1296 Zone, Proctor Valley Road from Pioneer Way to Melody Road Cameron 80 5 75 6%2,500 18 2,482 1%Design to begin in Q3. P2174 PS - 1090-1 Pump Station Upgrade Beppler 10 - 10 0%1,150 1,125 25 98% Construction completed in Q3 FY 2022. Project one year warranty scheduled to be completed Q3 FY 2023. P2195 PL - 24 - Inch, 640 Zone, Campo Road - Regulatory Site/Millar Ranch Cameron 20 4 16 20%1,415 11 1,404 1%PDR to begin in Q3. P2196 PL - 24 - Inch, 640 Zone, Millar Ranch Road to 832-1 Pump Station Cameron 20 5 15 25%965 11 954 1%PDR to begin in Q3. P2533 1200-1 Reservoir Interior & Exterior Coating Cameron 5 2 3 40%1,275 1,171 104 92%Project is in the warranty period. P2539 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Utility Relocations Cameron 15 - 15 0%1,090 1,038 52 95%Project has been completed. P2543 850-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 5 - 5 0%1,270 1,087 183 86%Project is in the warranty period. P2546 980-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron 10 - 10 0%1,705 1,690 15 99%Project has been completed. P2562 Res - 571-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 10 - 10 0%2,810 2,793 17 99% As part of the larger CIP P2083 870-2 Pump Station project, the 571-1 Reservoir was placed back into service April 2018. Project will be closed out for FY 2024. P2563 Res - 870-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement and Supporting Projects Marchioro 250 68 182 27%5,700 368 5,332 6% A new CIP will be created for the future 870-2 Reservoir since the planned reservoir volume changed from 0.6 to 3.4 MG. P2565 803-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 10 - 10 0%1,100 991 109 90%Project has been completed. P2567 1004-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 690 56 634 8%1,275 142 1,133 11%Construction to begin in Q3. P2578 PS - 711-2 (PS 711-1 Replacement and Expansion) - 14,000 GPM Marchioro 50 1 49 2%2,000 44 1,956 2% Design of a cost savings solution to restore Pump #3 original capacity in progress. P2593 458-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 50 41 9 82%1,050 895 155 85%Project is in the warranty period. P2594 Large Meter Replacement Carey 20 5 15 25%730 513 217 70%On track. P2605 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1571 Melrose Ave Beppler 80 19 61 24%750 625 125 83% Construction substantially completed in Q4 FY 2022. Project one year warranty scheduled to be completed Q4 FY 2023. P2609 PL - 8-inch, 1004 Zone, Eucalyptus Street, Coronado/Date/La Mesa Cameron 75 - 75 0%2,100 1,132 968 54% Phase I of project accepted by the District FY 2021; Phase II starts after 3 year paving moratorium. P2610 Valve Replacement Program - Phase 1 Cameron 400 464 (64) 116%2,000 1,418 582 71% Costs for pre-purchase of material due to longer lead times. Material costs have increased as well. P2615 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 803 PZ, Vista Grande Beppler 50 2 48 4%2,600 42 2,558 2%Preliminary design phase has started. P2616 PL - 12-Inch Pipeline Replacement, 978 Zone, Pence Drive/Vista Sierra Drive Beppler 1,000 28 972 3%2,875 316 2,559 11% Project is in construction phase, awaiting material acquisition for mobilizing and starting inistallation expected in Q3. P2627 458/340 PRS Replacement, 1505 Oleander Avenue Beppler 80 167 (87) 209%750 633 117 84% Construction substantially completed in Q4 FY 2022. Project one year warranty scheduled to be completed Q4 FY 2023. P2631 1485-2 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron 5 - 5 0%1,250 - 1,250 0%Expenditures planned for Q4. P2653 1200 Pressure Zone Improvements Marchioro 100 5 95 5%850 688 162 81% Construction completed Q1 FY 2023. Project one year warranty period completed Q1 FY 2024. Project will be closed out for FY 2024. P2655 La Presa Pipeline Improvements Cameron 50 3 47 6%1,750 280 1,470 16% Project was going to be designed this year, but the County of SD is paving the road, which will delay this project. P2656 Regulatory Site Desilting Basin Improvements Beppler 5 - 5 0%150 7 143 5% No activities occurred during Q1. Operations to implement improvements as time allows. P2657 1485-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%950 - 950 0%No expenditures in FY 2023. P2661 Replacement of Backflow Prevention Devices on Pipeline Interconnections on Otay Mesa Beppler 75 - 75 0%375 8 367 2% No activities occurred during Q1. Operations to implement improvements as time allows. P2662 Potable Water Meter Change Out Carey 20 - 20 0%7,950 - 7,950 0%On track. https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/Forms_New/D-Construction/CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2023/Q1/FY2023 1st Qtr Exp.xlsx Page 3 of 5 11/15/2022 FISCAL YEAR 2023 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/22) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2023 09/30/22 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2023 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Q1 Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 P2670 Administration and Operations Roof Repairs and Replacement Payne 5 - 5 0%350 - 350 0%Ongoing maintenance; replacement FY 2025-2028. P2671 980 Reservoirs Altitude Valve Vaults Renovation Beppler 25 12 13 48%650 646 4 99% Construction substantially completed in Q4 FY 2022. Project one year warranty scheduled to be completed Q4 FY 2023. P2672 District Roof Repairs and Replacement Program Payne 5 - 5 0%340 - 340 0% Ongoing maintenance; various PS replacement FY 2025-2027. P2673 803-4 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron - - - 0%250 - 250 0%No expenditures in FY 2023. P2675 458-1 and 458-2 Reservoirs Site Pavement Refurbishment Cameron 250 5 245 2%450 5 445 1%Design to begin in Q2. P2677 PL - 16-Inch, 870 Zone, La Media Road and Airway Road Utility Relocations Beppler 1,300 1 1,299 0%1,800 20 1,780 1% City of SD advertised for construction bids in Q1, invoice expected to be received in Q2, and payment to be made in Q3. P2678 Jamacha Boulevard Utility Relocation Cameron 25 - 25 0%250 - 250 0%This is a County of SD driven project. P2679 520-3 Reservoir Recirculation Static Mixer Replacement Project Beppler 30 - 30 0%200 147 53 74% Construction completed in Q3 FY 2022. Project one year warranty scheduled to be completed Q3 FY 2023. P2680 PL - 12-inch Pipeline Replacement, 1530 Zone, Vista Diego Road Marchioro 25 - 25 0%425 48 377 11% Project will be designed as part of the larger Vista Diego Hydropneumatic Pump Station Replacement Project (CIP P2639). See P2639 for updates. P2681 PL-12-Inch, 1655 Zone, Presilla Drive Pipeline Replacement Cameron 110 14 96 13%1,650 121 1,529 7%Project is currently 60% designed. P2682 AMI Project Carey 200 10 190 5%300 39 261 13% Currently working on bid requirements for Q3 installation. P2685 980/711 PRS Renovation - Proctor Valley Rd Marchioro 10 - 10 0%650 - 650 0%No expenses anticpated in FY 2023. P2686 870 PZ Seismic Vault Renovation Beppler 5 - 5 0%350 - 350 0% No expenditures in Q1, planning level work may occur in FY 2023. P2687 Steele Canyon Rd Bridge 803 PZ 20-inch WL Renovation Beppler 100 23 77 23%600 23 577 4% Preparation of a sample repair performed in Q1, repair to be made and evaluated in Q2 to determine the project scope of work. P2689 944-1-9 Pump Station Meter Vault Renovation Cameron 10 - 10 0%200 - 200 0%No expenditures in FY 2023. P2690 850-4 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating Cameron - - - 0%1,850 - 1,850 0%No expenditures in FY 2023. R2121 Res - 944-1 Reservoir Cover/Liner Replacement Marchioro 30 - 30 0%2,400 25 2,375 1% No expenditures anticipated in FY 2023. Replacement scheduled for FY 2025 since existing cover/liner testing completed in FY 2020 suggested four to six years remaining life. R2144 RWCWRF Roofing Replacement and Natural Light Enhancement (R)Payne 5 - 5 0%115 103 12 90%Completed. R2148 Large Meter Replacement - Recycled Carey 8 - 8 0%88 35 53 40%On track. R2152 Recycled Water Meter Change-Out Carey 10 - 10 0%270 - 270 0%On track. R2156 RecPL - 14-inch RWCWRF Effluent Force Main Improvements Marchioro 10 - 10 0%800 247 553 31%No expenses anticpated in FY 2023. R2157 RWCWRF Backwash Supply Pumps Upgrade Beppler 50 7 43 14%300 35 265 12% The preliminary design report was reviewed and finalized in Q1; 60% design is in progress. R2158 RWCWRF Stormwater Pond Improvements (R)Beppler 5 - 5 0%175 - 175 0% No activities occurred during Q1. Planning to be coordinated with R2117 to determine impacts. R2159 RecPL - 16-Inch, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway Recycled Pipeline Replacement Beppler 400 41 359 10%6,000 351 5,649 6% Final design was completed and project advertised for bids in Q1. Construction contract to be awarded in Q3 with construction to be completed in FY 2024. R2161 450-1R Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coating & Upgrades Cameron - - - 0%1,565 - 1,565 0%No expenditures in FY 2023. R2163 450-1 RW Res Disinfection Injection Vault Renovation Marchioro 20 - 20 0%300 - 300 0%No expenses anticpated in FY 2023. R2164 450-1 RW Res Stormwater Improvements Marchioro 20 - 20 0%800 - 800 0%No expenses anticpated in FY 2023. S2024 Campo Road Sewer Main Replacement Beppler 5 - 5 0%11,080 11,036 44 100% Revegetation efforts will continue as needed to comply with Caltrans permit. S2049 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 50 - 50 0%1,150 67 1,083 6% Planning activities will review scope of work to consider operations hot spots, design is scheduled to recommence in FY 2024. S2050 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 2 Beppler 10 - 10 0%659 7 652 1% No expenditures in Q1, planning level work may occur in FY 2023. S2054 Calavo Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%170 - 170 0%No activities planned in FY 2023. S2060 Steele Canyon Pump Station Replacement Beppler - - - 0%800 - 800 0%No activities planned in FY 2023. S2066 Rancho San Diego Basin Sewer Rehabilitation - Phase 3 Beppler - - - 0%65 - 65 0%No activities planned in FY 2023. S2067 RWCWRF Roofing Replacement and Natural Light Enhancement (S)Payne 5 - 5 0%115 102 13 89%Completed. https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/Forms_New/D-Construction/CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2023/Q1/FY2023 1st Qtr Exp.xlsx Page 4 of 5 11/15/2022 FISCAL YEAR 2023 1ST QUARTER REPORT (Expenditures through 9/30/22) ($000) ATTACHMENT B 2023 09/30/22 CIP No.Description Project Manager FY 2023 Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Budget Expenses Balance Expense to Budget %Q1 Comments FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 LIFE-TO-DATE, 09/30/22 S2069 Cottonwood Sewer Pump Station Renovation Beppler 250 62 188 25%2,750 234 2,516 9% Property acquisition completed in Q1. Selection of a consultant for the project design started and is to be awarded in Q3. S2072 RWCWRF Rotary Screen Replacement Beppler 40 1 39 3%600 1 599 0%Planning work initiated for channel repairs in Q1. S2074 RWCWRF Stormwater Pond Improvements (S)Beppler 5 - 5 0%175 - 175 0% No activities occurred during Q1. Planning to be coordinated with R2117 to determine impacts. S2076 RWCWRF Grit Chamber Improvements Beppler 30 - 30 0%250 - 250 0% No expenditures in Q1. Planning level work may occur in FY 2023. S2077 RWCWRF Blowers Renovation Beppler 30 - 30 0%400 - 400 0% No expenditures in Q1. Planning level work may occur in FY 2023. S2079 Steele Canyon Rd Bridge 6-inch Sewer FM Renovation Beppler 100 - 100 0%350 - 350 0% Project design waiting on scope of work for P2687 to be determined, the two projects will be designed together. S2080 Standby Power Renovations - Sewer Rahders 5 - 5 0%200 - 200 0%Anticipating $44,000 expenditure in FY 2023. Total Replacement/Renewal Projects Total:6,433 1,056 5,377 16%113,377 50,087 63,290 44% CAPITAL PURCHASE PROJECTS P2282 Vehicle Capital Purchases Rahders 795 66 729 8%8,000 5,417 2,583 68% $230,255.74 encumbered. Items 5 & 7 (valued at $400,000) will be 2024 models and the earliest estimated arrival will be Q1 or Q2 FY 2024. These two purchases are not reflected in the encumbrance. P2286 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 168 - 168 0%3,500 2,219 1,281 63%$103,245.13 encumbered. P2571 Data Center Network Data Storage and Infrastructure Enhancements Kerr 55 34 21 62%530 453 77 85%Project on target. P2572 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Replacement Kerr 75 - 75 0%165 - 165 0% Conducting Research and Requirements; project on target. R2160 Recycled Water Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 100 29 71 29%700 137 563 20%Activity anticipated in Q2. R2162 Vehicle Capital Purchases - Recycled Rahders 25 64 (39) 256%175 64 111 37% $64,000 expensed for two vehicles budgeted for and purchased in FY 2022, but delivered in Q1 FY 2023. s2075 Field Equipment Capital Purchases Rahders 42 - 42 0%500 94 406 19%$36,216.56 expensed in Q2. S2078 Vehicle Capital Purchases - Sewer Rahders - - - 0%160 - 160 0%No activity in FY 2023. Total Capital Purchase Projects Total:1,260 193 1,067 15%13,730 8,384 5,346 61% DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT PROJECTS P2595 PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Village 3N - Heritage Road, Main St/Energy Way Beppler 1 - 1 0%150 - 150 0%Awaiting developer submission for reimbursement. R2084 RecPL - 20-Inch, 680 Zone, Village 2 - Heritage/La Media Beppler 1 - 1 0%365 271 94 74% Reimbursement made in FY 2022, awaiting information if entire project is now complete. Total Developer Reimbursement Projects Total:2 - 2 0%515 271 244 53% 129 GRAND TOTAL 12,579$ 1,526$ 11,053$ 12%187,952$ 78,663$ 109,289$ 42% https://otaywater365.sharepoint.com/sites/engoperating/Shared Documents/Forms_New/D-Construction/CIP Quarterly Reports/CIP Qtr Reports/FY 2023/Q1/FY2023 1st Qtr Exp.xlsx Page 5 of 5 11/15/2022 Otay Water District Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2023 First Quarter (through September 30, 2022) 458-1 Exterior Coating ATTACHMENT C Background The approved CIP Budget for Fiscal Year 2023 consists of 128 projects that total $12.58 million. These projects are broken down into four categories. 1.Capital Facilities $ 4.88 million 2.Replacement/Renewal $ 6.43 million 3.Capital Purchases $ 1.26 million 4.Developer Reimbursement $ 2 thousand Overall expenditures through the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2023 totaled nearly $1.53 million, which is approximately 12% of the Fiscal Year budget. 2 Fiscal Year 2023 First Quarter Update ($000) CIP CAT Description FY 2023 Budget FY 2023 Expenditures % FY 2023 Budget Spent Total Life-to-Date Budget Total Life-to-Date Expenditures % Life-to-Date Budget Spent 1 Capital Facilities $4,884 $277 6%$60,330 $19,921 33% 2 Replacement/ Renewal $6,433 $1,056 16%$113,377 $50,087 44% 3 Capital Purchases $1,260 $193 15%$13,730 $8,384 61% 4 Developer Reimbursement $2 $0 0%$515 $271 53% Total: $12,579 $1,526 12%$187,952 $78,663 42% 3 Fiscal Year 2023 First Quarter CIP Budget Forecast vs. Expenditures 4 5 CIP Projects in Construction Melrose Avenue & Oleander Avenue 458/340 PRSs Replacement/980 Reservoirs Altitude Valve Vaults Renovation Projects (P2605, P2627 & P2671) Project includes replacement of two pressure reducing stations and the renovation of two altitude valve vaults and all associated work and appurtenances $2.15M Combined Budgets NTP: July 2021 Completed within budget: October 31, 2022 (NOC process underway) Division No. 2 & 5 6 Location: East Chula Vista/Otay Valley and Mount San Miguel CIP Projects in Construction 458-1 (0.8 MG) Reservoir Interior and Exterior Coating & Upgrades Project (P2593) Renovation work includes removing and replacing the interior and exterior coatings of the welded steel reservoir including structural modifications and upgrades $1.05M Budget NTP: Jan 2022 Completed within budget: July 2022 7 Division No. 2 Location: 458-1 is located in the East Chula Vista area Construction Contract Status 8 PRIOR YEARS Q1 %YTD %PROJECT TOTAL % P2605, P2627 & P2671 Melrose Ave & Oleander Ave 458/340 PRSs Replacement/980 Reservoir Altitude Valve Vaults Renovation CCL Contracting, Inc. Paul Mochel (Valley CM)$1,289,523 $1,331,523 $31,169 $68,722 5.3%$68,722 5.3%$99,891 7.7%$1,399,601 5.1%100.0%October 2022 P2593 458-1 Reservoir Interior/Exterior Coatings & Upgrades Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. Doug Cook (Alyson)$684,169 $774,169 $7,200 ($81,000)-11.8%($81,000)-11.8%($73,800)-10.8%$668,769 -13.6%100.0%July 2022 R2146 Recycled Water Pipeline Cathodic Protection Project M-Rae Engineering, Inc. Paul Mochel (Valley CM)$537,560 $552,060 $0 $0 0.0%$0 0.0%$0 0.0%$537,560 -2.6%0.0%February 2023 P2612/P2616 Paso de Luz/Telegraph Canyon and Vista Grande/Vista Sierra Water Line Replacements CCL Contracting, Inc. Paul Mochel (Valley CM)$1,573,540 $1,627,440 $0 $0 0.0%$0 0.0%$0 0.0%$1,573,540 -3.3%2.1%May 2023 TOTALS:$4,084,792 $4,285,192 $38,369 $ (12,278)-0.3%($12,278)-0.3%$26,091 0.6%$4,179,470 -2.5% **THIS CHANGE ORDER RATE INCLUDES THE CREDIT FOR UNUSED ALLOWANCES NET CHANGE ORDERS FY 2022* *NET CHANGE ORDERS DO NOT INCLUDE ALLOWANCE ITEM CREDITS. IT'S A TRUE CHANGE ORDER PERCENTAGE FOR THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTIO N MANAGER % CHANGE ORDERS W/ ALLOWANCE CREDIT** % COMPLETE EST. COMP. DATE NET CHANGE ORDERS LTD* FY 2023 CIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS as of September 30, 2022 CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT CIP NO.PROJECT TITLE CONTRACTOR BASE BID AMOUNT CONTRACT AMOUNT W/ ALLOWANCES Consultant Contract Status 9 Consultant Contract Status 10 Consultant Contract Status 11 Consultant Contract Status 12 QUESTIONS? 13 STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Regular Board MEETING DATE: January 4, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Damon Newman, Reclamation Plant/HAZWOPER Supervisor PROJECT: Various DIV. NO. ALL APPROVED BY: Jake Vaclavek, System Operations Manager Andrew Jackson, Chief Water Operations Jose Martinez, General Manager SUBJECT: District’s Confined Space Rescue/HAZWOPER Team GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: None. This is an informational item only. COMMITTEE ACTION: See “Attachment A.” PURPOSE: To inform the Board of the overall operation of the District’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Confined Space rescue team. ANALYSIS: The District’s HAZWOPER team is a group of volunteer employees from various sections within the Operations Department and the Inspections Section in the Engineering Department. The District’s HAZWOPER team has received specialized training for particular types of chemical releases, specifically chlorine and/or ammonia, and the rescue and/or recovery of person(s) in confined spaces. Given the significance and AGENDA ITEM 9 2 importance of emergency response, the HAZWOPER team is comprised of field personnel with experience in chemical handling and knowledge of the location of District chemicals, such as treatment plant personnel, Water System Operators, Disinfection Technicians, etc., and personnel with knowledge in confined spaces, harness, confined space equipment, etc. Most importantly these individuals must have the ability to work as a team in adverse environments. FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer None. STRATEGIC GOAL: None. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action Attachment B – Presentation ATTACHMENT A SUBJECT/PROJECT: District’s Confined Space Rescue/HAZWOPER Team COMMITTEE ACTION: The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee reviewed this item at a meeting held on December 5, 2022, and the following comments were made: NOTE: The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee moving the item forward for board approval. This report will be sent to the Board as a committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion or changes as directed from the committee prior to presentation to the full board. HAZWOPER Team Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response and Confined Space Rescue Team December 5, 2022 Damon Newman ATTACHMENT B Background 1984 O.S.H.A. published the hazardous waste operations and emergency guidance manual. 1990 O.S.H.A. promulgated this standard as the HAZWOPER standard (1910.120) to create training programs & benchmarks for individuals involved in the disposal and cleaning of hazardous waste and materials. 1991 California enacted its own HAZWOPER rules mirroring federal rules with additional requirements For safety and health plans and PPE (CCR Title 8 section 5192). 1992 California enacted an act from senate bill 1841 requiring all public water systems with 10,000+ connections to revise their disaster preparedness plans. 1993 Cal-OSHA required agencies that perform Confined Spaced Entries (CSE) to have capability of performing CSE rescues. 1990’s Mid-1990’s gave way to Otay Water District (District) to establish a “Confined Space Rescue Team” which quickly evolved to also responding to chlorine and ammonia releases. 2000’s Mid-2000’s, the District’s “Confined Space Rescue Team” was renamed to the “HAZWOPER Team.” Purpose To have a team of first responders for disasters, emergencies, and other critical incidents impacting District operations. Team members may also be called upon, consistent with Mutual-Aid agreements, to assist neighboring water agencies or other emergency and disaster first responder personnel. Personnel The HAZWOP and Emergency Response Confined Space Rescue Team consist of 12 employees in the following District departmental sections: Treatment Plant Disinfection Utility Maintenance Pump/Electrical/SCADA Inspections Recycled Water Program HAZWOPER Team Roles Chemical Release Roles Incident Commander -1 member Entry Team “A” -2 members Entry Team “B” -2 members Level “A” Suit Dressers -2 members Hot Zone Decon -2 members Site Safety -1 member Event Scribe -1 member Communications -1 member HAZWOPER Team Roles Confined Space Rescue Roles Incident commander -1 member Entry Team “A” -2 members Entry Team “B” -2 members Entry Attendant -1 member Winch Control -1 member Site Safety -1 member Event Scribe -1 member Communications -1 member Entry Team Dresser/Grips -2 members HAZWOPER Team Roles, cont. Training Initial 40-hours of instruction Annual 8-hour refresher course A minimum of 2-3 days of training on Emergency Response Confined Space Rescue A minimum of 2-3 days of training on chlorine leak response Emergency Response Confined Space Rescue Equipment Dbi Sala Tripod Tripod Winch Secondary Fall Arrest Davit Arm Confined Space Blower Atmospheric Gas Monitors Harnesses Chlorine Leak Response Training Chlorine Leak Response Equipment Chlorine “B” Kit Level “A” Suit SCBA –Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus Decontamination Equipment Rubber Boots Chlorine Scrubber Chlorine Scrubber Chlorine “B” Kit Eligibility Regular full-time employee with at least one (1) year of service with the District. Physically and mentally fit, as determined by a medical screening. Able to work effectively when encapsulated in a level “A” suit. Must have a good performance record. Able to lift 50 pounds. Prepared to volunteer for a minimum term of five (5) years. Complete required training: 40-hour HAZWOPER, Confined Space Entry, basic First Aid/CPR/AED & Respiratory Protection training and fit testing. Questions ?Questions?